[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18020-18037]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 4567, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4567) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Homeland Security for fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2005, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Nelson of Florida amendment No. 3607, to provide funds for 
     the American Red Cross.
       Schumer amendment No. 3615, to appropriate $100,000,000 to 
     establish an identification and tracking system for HAZMAT 
     trucks and a background check system for commercial driver 
     licenses.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 6 minutes as in morning business.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have no objection as long as Senator 
Durbin is recognized for a like amount of time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for up to 6 minutes and the 
Senator from Illinois is recognized for up to 6 minutes.


                       On the Anniversary of 9/11

  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the chairman for the time and the leadership.
  I simply wish to join our leaders today in remembrance of the tragic 
events of September 11. As I remember those events, I remember more how 
clearly our country pulled together in response. September 11 is one of 
our worst days but it brought out the best in us. It unified us as a 
country and showed our charitable instincts and reminded us of what we 
stood for and stand for. It showed that we had the resolve to fight 
against terrorism. We put partisanship aside in our Government offices. 
We began to proudly say to the rest of the world, we know what it means 
to be an American.
  The best way we can remember September 11 is to remember why this is 
an exceptional country. We are the only country in the world that has 
taken people from so many different backgrounds, which is a great 
achievement by itself, but an even greater achievement is that we have 
turned all of that variety and diversity into unity. That unity depends 
upon a few principles in which we believe: liberty, equal opportunity, 
individualism.
  President Bush has eloquently spoken of the American character since 
September 11. But we in the Senate have a role to play, too. That is 
why, with the support of many other Senators on both sides of the 
aisle, I have been working hard to harness that spirit to help us 
remember for generations to come what it means to be an American. That 
means teaching it to our children and to those who become new citizens 
of our country.
  One of the great tragedies of education in this country today is that 
high school seniors perform worse in American history than in any other 
subject for which they are nationally tested. That is not right. The 
assistant Democratic leader, Senator Reid, and I proposed legislation 
last year which passed the Senate without a dissenting vote to create 
summer academies for outstanding students and teachers in U.S. history. 
The House still needs to act on this bill.
  The Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and I have introduced 
legislation that would allow our Nation's report card to test eighth 
graders and high school seniors on U.S. history, on a pilot State-by-
State basis. This will help us know where it is being taught well and 
where it is not so improvements can be made. Shining the spotlight on 
these results also encourages school districts to work harder to teach 
American history and civics as well.
  The Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, and I have introduced 
legislation to preserve the oath of allegiance in its present form, so 
that oath--to which all new citizens swear on naturalization--is given 
the same respect as we give to the Pledge of Allegiance, to the 
national anthem, and to the American flag.
  While that legislation is pending in committee, with the support of 
the chairman, the Senator from Mississippi, the Senate unanimously 
passed yesterday an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations 
bill to prevent the oath from being changed during the next fiscal year 
while the Senate works its will on the legislation proposed by the 
Senator from New York and me.
  I am also working on a second amendment to that legislation to 
establish a new foundation that will work with the Office of 
Citizenship to promote the teaching of English, history, and civics to 
the soon-to-be new citizens of our country and to other new citizens. 
We are a nation of immigrants. We are proud of that. We should do our 
best to help those who are new to our country become thriving members 
of our society so they can learn our history, learn about citizenship, 
speak our common language. That will help them on the path to the 
American dream.
  The Senate has been hard at work over the last 2 years to help 
enshrine the values and history that bind us together as Americans. 
Nothing could be more important as we remember September 11, as we 
mourn those we lost, but take pride in what was found, our national 
unity. The best way to remember September 11 is to remember what it 
means to be an American.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The Senator from Illinois may 
speak for up to 6 minutes.


                          America Has Changed

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week we mark two significant dates. 
Tomorrow, September 11, the third anniversary of our attack which will 
truly live in infamy as the attack on Pearl Harbor. It is a moment when 
we reflect on what has happened to America since that time.
  A member of the diplomatic corps once asked me: Did Osama bin Laden 
win that battle? The answer, clearly, is no. But did he change America? 
The answer, clearly, is yes.
  We are debating in the Senate a bill for billions of dollars to be 
spent in defense of America, which we might not have even considered 3 
years ago. Now it is reality.
  In a few moments I will leave to go to National Airport. Before I 
board my flight back to Illinois, I will take off my shoes and my belt 
and my watch and I will hold my arms out to be ``wanded,'' to make 
certain that I am safe enough to go on the airplane. America has truly 
changed.
  But our values have not changed. Ted Sorensen may be one of the 
greatest speech writers in the history of our Nation. On May 21 he 
delivered a commencement address at the New School University of New 
York where a friend and former colleague, Bob Kerrey, is president.
  I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Sorensen's commencement address be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Commencement Address of Theodore C. Sorensen Upon Receiving an Honorary 
            Doctor of Laws Degree From New School University

                             A Time to Weep

       As a Nebraska emigre, I am proud to be made an Honorary 
     Doctor of Laws by another Nebraska emigre, President Kerrey . 
     . . at an institution founded by still another, Alvin 
     Johnson.
       Considering the unhealthy state of our laws today, they 
     probably could use another doctor.
       My reciprocal obligation is to make a speech.
       This is not a speech. Two weeks ago I set aside the speech 
     I prepared. This is a cry from the heart, a lamentation for 
     the loss of this country's goodness and therefore its 
     greatness.

[[Page 18021]]

       Future historians studying the decline and fall of America 
     will mark this as the time the tide began to turn--toward a 
     mean-spirited mediocrity in place of a noble beacon.
       For me the final blow was American guards laughing over the 
     naked, helpless bodies of abused prisoners in Iraq. ``There 
     is a time to laugh,'' the Bible tells us, ``and a time to 
     weep.'' Today I weep for the country I love, the country I 
     proudly served, the country to which my four grandparents 
     sailed over a century ago with hopes for a new land of peace 
     and freedom. I cannot remain silent when that country is in 
     the deepest trouble of my lifetime.
       I am not talking only about the prison abuse scandal--that 
     stench will someday subside. Nor am I referring only to the 
     Iraq war--that too will pass--nor to any one political leader 
     or party. This is no time for politics as usual, in which no 
     one responsible admits responsibility, no one genuinely 
     apologizes, no one resigns and everyone else is blamed.
       The damage done to this country by its own misconduct in 
     the last few months and years, to its very heart and soul, is 
     far greater and longer lasting than any damage that any 
     terrorist could possibly inflict upon us.
       The stain on our credibility, our reputation for decency 
     and integrity, will not quickly wash away.
       Last week, a family friend of an accused American guard in 
     Iraq recited the atrocities inflicted by our enemies on 
     Americans, and asked: ``Must we be held to a different 
     standard?'' My answer is YES. Not only because others expect 
     it. WE must hold ourselves to a different standard. Not only 
     because God demands it, but because it serves our security.
       Our greatest strength has long been not merely our military 
     might but our moral authority. Our surest protection against 
     assault from abroad has been not all our guards, gates and 
     guns or even our two oceans, but our essential goodness as a 
     people. Our richest asset has been not our material wealth 
     but our values.
       We were world leaders once--helping found the United 
     Nations, the Marshall Plan, NATO, and programs like Food for 
     Peace, international human rights and international 
     environmental standards. The world admired not only the 
     bravery of our Marine Corps but also the idealism of our 
     Peace Corps.
       Our word was as good as our gold. At the start of the Cuban 
     Missile Crisis, former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, 
     President Kennedy's special envoy to brief French President 
     de Gaulle, offered to document our case by having the actual 
     pictures of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba brought in. 
     ``No,'' shrugged the usually difficult de Gaulle: ``The word 
     of the President of the United States is good enough for 
     me.''
       Eight months later, President Kennedy could say at American 
     University: ``The world knows that America will never start a 
     war. This generation of Americans has had enough of war and 
     hate . . . we want to build a world of peace where the weak 
     are secure and the strong are just.''
       Our founding fathers believed this country could be a 
     beacon of light to the world, a model of democratic and 
     humanitarian progress. We were. We prevailed in the Cold War 
     because we inspired millions struggling for freedom in far 
     corners of the Soviet empire. I have been in countries where 
     children and avenues were named for Lincoln, Jefferson, 
     Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. We were respected, 
     not reviled, because we respected man's aspirations for peace 
     and justice. This was the country to which foreign leaders 
     sent not only their goods to be sold but their sons and 
     daughters to be educated. In the 1930s, when Jewish and other 
     scholars were driven out of Europe, their preferred 
     destination--even for those on the far left--was not the 
     Communist citadel in Moscow but the New School here in New 
     York.
       What has happened to our country? We have been in wars 
     before, without resorting to sexual humiliation as torture, 
     without blocking the Red Cross, without insulting and 
     deceiving our allies and the U.N., without betraying our 
     traditional values, without imitating our adversaries, 
     without blackening our name around the world.
       Last year when asked on short notice to speak to a European 
     audience, and inquiring what topic I should address, the 
     Chairman said: ``Tell us about the good America, the America 
     when Kennedy was in the White House.'' ``It is still a good 
     America,'' I replied. ``The American people still believe in 
     peace, human rights and justice; they are still a generous, 
     fair-minded, open-minded people.''
       Today some political figures argue that merely to report, 
     much less to protest, the crimes against humanity committed 
     by a few of our own inadequately trained forces in the fog of 
     war, is to aid the enemy or excuse its atrocities. But 
     Americans know that such self-censorship does not enhance our 
     security. Attempts to justify or defend our illegal acts as 
     nothing more than pranks or no worse than the crimes of our 
     enemies, only further muddies our moral image. 30 years ago, 
     America's war in Vietnam became a hopeless military quagmire; 
     today our war in Iraq has become a senseless moral swamp.
       No military victory can endure unless the victor occupies 
     the high moral ground. Surely America, the land of the free, 
     could not lose the high moral ground invading Iraq, a country 
     ruled by terror, torture and tyranny--but we did.
       Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein--politically, 
     economically, diplomatically, much as we succeeded in 
     isolating Khadafy, Marcos, Mobutu and a host of other 
     dictators over the years, we have isolated ourselves. We are 
     increasingly alone in a dangerous world in which millions who 
     once respected us now hate us.
       Not only Muslims. Every international survey shows our 
     global standing at an all-time low. Even our transatlantic 
     alliance has not yet recovered from its worst crisis in 
     history. Our friends in Western Europe were willing to accept 
     Uncle Sam as class president, but not as class bully, once he 
     forgot JFK's advice that ``Civility is not a sign of 
     weakness.''
       All this is rationalized as part of the war on terror. But 
     abusing prisoners in Iraq, denying detainees their legal 
     rights in Guantanamo, even American citizens, misleading the 
     world at large about Saddam's ready stockpiles of mass 
     destruction and involvement with al Qaeda at 9/11, did not 
     advance by one millimeter our efforts to end the threat of 
     another terrorist attack upon us. On the contrary, our 
     conduct invites and incites new attacks and new recruits to 
     attack us.
       The decline in our reputation adds to the decline in our 
     security. We keep losing old friends and making new enemies--
     not a formula for success. We have not yet rounded up Osama 
     bin Laden or most of the al Qaeda and Taliban leaders or the 
     anthrax mailer. ``The world is large,'' wrote John Boyle 
     O'Reilly, in one of President Kennedy's favorite poems, 
     ``when its weary leagues two loving hearts divide, but the 
     world is small when your enemy is loose on the other side.'' 
     Today our enemies are still loose on the other side of the 
     world, and we are still vulnerable to attack.
       True, we have not lost either war we chose or lost too much 
     of our wealth. But we have lost something worse--our good 
     name for truth and justice. To paraphrase Shakespeare: ``He 
     who steals our nation's purse, steals trash. 'Twas ours, 'tis 
     his, and has been slave to thousands. But he that filches our 
     good name . . . makes us poor indeed.''
       No American wants us to lose a war. Among our enemies are 
     those who, if they could, would fundamentally change our way 
     of life, restricting our freedom of religion by exalting one 
     faith over others, ignoring international law and the 
     opinions of mankind; and trampling on the rights of those who 
     are different, deprived or disliked. To the extent that our 
     nation voluntarily trods those same paths in the name of 
     security, the terrorists win and we are the losers.
       We are no longer the world's leaders on matters of 
     international law and peace. After we stopped listening to 
     others, they stopped listening to us. A nation without 
     credibility and moral authority cannot lead, because no one 
     will follow.
       Paradoxically, the charges against us in the court of world 
     opinion are contradictory. We are deemed by many to be 
     dangerously aggressive, a threat to world peace. You may 
     regard that as ridiculously unwarranted, no matter how often 
     international surveys show that attitude to be spreading. But 
     remember the old axiom: ``No matter how good you feel, if 
     four friends tell you you're drunk, you better lie down.''
       Yet we are also charged not so much with intervention as 
     indifference--indifference toward the suffering of millions 
     of our fellow inhabitants of this planet who do not enjoy the 
     freedom, the opportunity, the health and wealth and security 
     that we enjoy; indifference to the countless deaths of 
     children and other civilians in unnecessary wars, countless 
     because we usually do not bother to count them; indifference 
     to the centuries of humiliation endured previously in silence 
     by the Arab and Islamic worlds.
       The good news, to relieve all this gloom, is that a 
     democracy is inherently self-correcting. Here, the people are 
     sovereign. Inept political leaders can be replaced. Foolish 
     policies can be changed. Disastrous mistakes can be reversed.
       When, in 1941, the Japanese Air Force was able to inflict 
     widespread death and destruction on our naval and air forces 
     in Hawaii because they were not on alert, those military 
     officials most responsible for ignoring advance intelligence 
     were summarily dismissed.
       When, in the late 1940s, we faced a global Cold War against 
     another system of ideological fanatics certain that their 
     authoritarian values would eventually rule the world, we 
     prevailed in time. We prevailed because we exercised patience 
     as well as vigilance, self-restraint as well as self-defense, 
     and reached out to moderates and modernists, to democrats and 
     dissidents, within that closed system. We can do that again. 
     We can reach out to moderates and modernists in Islam, proud 
     of its long traditions of dialogue, learning, charity and 
     peace.
       Some among us scoff that the war on Jihadist terror is a 
     war between civilization and chaos. But they forget that 
     there were Islamic universities and observatories long before 
     we had railroads.

[[Page 18022]]

       So do not despair. In this country, the people are 
     sovereign. If we can but tear the blindfold of self-deception 
     from our eyes and loosen the gag of self-denial from our 
     voices, we can restore our country to greatness. In 
     particular, you--the Class of 2004--have the wisdom and 
     energy to do it. Start soon.
       In the words of the ancient Hebrews:

       The day is short, and the work is great, and the laborers 
     are sluggish, but the reward is much, and the Master is 
     urgent.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Mr. Sorensen said at one point in his 
speech something we should reflect on as we think about September 11. 
He said of America:

       Our greatest strength has long been not merely our military 
     might but our moral authority. Our surest protection against 
     assault from abroad has been not all our guards, gates and 
     guns or even our two oceans, but our essential goodness as a 
     people. Our richest asset has been not our material wealth 
     but our values.
       We were world leaders once--helping found the United 
     Nations, the Marshall Plan, NATO, and programs like Food for 
     Peace, international human rights and international 
     environmental standards. The world admired not only the 
     bravery of our Marine Corps but also the idealism of our 
     Peace Corps.

  Mr. Sorensen's words are a reminder that if we are to win this war 
against those who wish us ill, those terrorists and those who use 
terrorism as a tactic, we need not only a strong national defense, we 
need strong homeland security, but we also need to project the values 
of America in a positive way, not just with the forming of troops in 
formation but also with the forming of values in countries desperate to 
have a future that emulates the freedoms of the United States.


                     The Sacrifice of Our Soldiers

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the second noteworthy event this week was, 
of course, the acknowledgement that we have lost over 1,000 soldiers in 
Iraq. It has touched my State of Illinois. Some 50 people from my State 
have been killed in the war in Iraq, hundreds seriously wounded.
  I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Chicago Tribune 
dated September 9, 2004, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Chicago Tribune, Sept. 9, 2004]

    Downstate Town Stung by Deaths; 2 Soldiers Dead, 15 Hurt in Iraq

                (By Deborah Horan and H. Gregory Meyer)

       Paris, IL.--The worst attack yet on Illinois Army National 
     Guardsmen serving in Iraq left two soldiers dead and 15 
     wounded, and it left the Downstate town where their unit is 
     based stung by the news and fearful for the safety of 
     survivors.
       Mortar rounds pounded the 1544th Transportation Company 
     southwest of Baghdad late Sunday afternoon, killing Sgt. 
     Shawna Morrison, 26, of Paris and Spec. Charles Lamb, 23, of 
     Martinsville, said Lt. Col. Alicia Tate-Nadeau, a Guard 
     spokeswoman. Three of the 15 wounded were seriously injured, 
     she said.
       In Paris a radio station has put patriotic songs on heavy 
     rotation while locals drive cars tied with yellow ribbons 
     saying ``Pray for our troops.'' Morrison was the unit's first 
     female fatality, and the first soldier from Paris to die in 
     Iraq.
       ``This is the first one to hit our community,'' said Jim 
     Cooper, the father of a 20-year-old guardsman who is 
     stationed at the base that came under attack. ``It has really 
     brought this home. It opens up a lot of people's eyes. They 
     say, `Hey, I know so-and-so. He may be next.'''
       The deaths brought the unit's total fatalities to four as 
     the nation's total military deaths in Iraq since last year's 
     invasion edged past 1,000.
       The 1544th, headquartered in a brick armory in this town of 
     9,000, contains about 260 soldiers from four states, Tate-
     Nadeau said.
       Shirley Furry had posted a message under the price board 
     outside her Citgo station in Paris reading ``In memory of 
     Shawna.'' The young woman worked there several years ago, 
     Furry said. Morrison's mother called Furry Sunday night.
       ``I said, `Oh, no,''' Furry recalled. ``She said, `Yeah, 
     she's gone.'''
       Morrison attended the University of Illinois at Urbana-
     Champaign and worked two jobs, one as a waitress and the 
     other as a bartender, to put herself through school.
       ``She's always been very independent,'' said her father, 
     Rick Morrison. ``She never asked us for a dime from day one 
     when she moved out.''
       Morrison was called up in November, sent to Kuwait in 
     December and arrived in Iraq by February where she worked in 
     communications, her father said. And while she was nervous 
     before the deployment, she was most worried about rumors of 
     spiders the size of paper plates that could jump 6 feet.
       ``We spent many hours looking for spider spray,'' her 
     father said. ``And she never saw one.''
       Sgt. Scott Johnson, a member of the 1544th who was wounded 
     in Iraq in May, said Morrison and Lamb had contrasting 
     notions of comfort on base. ``Shawna, she was really looking 
     to settle in. She rounded up a couple of the nicer mattresses 
     to make sure she slept well at night,'' he said. ``Charles, 
     he would rough it. He was kind of an outdoorsman. He didn't 
     mind getting dirty.''
       Lamb, who grew up in a rural area near Martinsville, about 
     25 miles southwest of Paris, was a ``farm boy,'' said Mark 
     Harris, his agriculture education teacher at Casey-Westfield 
     High School, where he graduated in 1999.
       A live wire as a student, Lamb was active in the FFA, 
     formerly known as Future Farmers of America, and trained for 
     forestry, livestock and dairy competitions. A trip to Kansas 
     City for an FFA convention was a big deal to him.
       ``I think one of the reasons he signed up for the service 
     was to help other people out, make a better life and see the 
     country,'' Harris said.
       Before he was called up for active duty, he had worked as a 
     mechanic in Martinsville and had recently married, said a 
     former employer.
       ``He was planning on coming back,'' said a shop co-owner, 
     Shirley Goodwin. In Iraq he also worked as a mechanic.
       Cooper leads a support group for families of soldiers from 
     the 1544th. He said that when attacks take place, he's the 
     one who calls families whose sons and daughters weren't hurt.
       ``I can tell them they're OK, but I can't give them any 
     guarantees,'' he said. ``The unit is still running out there. 
     It makes it scary.''
       His son is also based at Logistical Base Seitz, the camp 
     outside Baghdad where Morrison and Lamb were killed, but he 
     was uninjured in Sunday's mortar shelling.
       ``Everybody's upset,'' he added. ``It is hard to walk into 
     a store without somebody recognizing me and saying, `How's 
     your son?'''

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this article speaks of one National Guard 
unit, the 1544th Transportation Company from Paris, IL. This unit of 
the Illinois National Guard has sustained almost half of the deaths and 
more than half of the injuries that our National Guard in Illinois has 
sustained, and just this last week two soldiers were killed and 15 
wounded after another attack in Iraq.
  It is a grim reminder that we are in a situation in Iraq with no end 
in sight. With 140,000 of our best and bravest in the field offering 
their lives every day for America, the fact that we would invade this 
nation of Iraq without a plan to deal with its reconstruction and 
pacification is the strongest condemnation of any government, and yet 
that is where we are today.
  This morning it was reported on the news that if there is an election 
in Iraq--and I pray there will be--some sections of that country will 
not even be able to vote because they are under the control of 
terrorists and guerrillas. That is an indication of how far we still 
have to travel before the day arrives when our troops can come safely 
home from Iraq, realizing that in reality their mission has been 
accomplished.
  As we reflect on 9/11, we reflect on our values. As we reflect on the 
heroes of America and think of those on 9/11, remember, too, the 
thousands still serving our Nation overseas from towns such as Paris, 
IL, and many just like them who offer their lives every day in defense 
of the values of this Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I assume we are now on the Homeland 
Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the leadership for 
making available time in the schedule for the handling of this bill and 
giving us a chance to consider amendments that are proposed by other 
Senators to the bill as reported by the Senate Appropriations 
Committee. It is important to note that yesterday's action and the 
action of the full committee so far have set the tone for the 
consideration of this bill.
  First of all, to remind Senators, the bill contains funding at a 
level of $33.1 billion. Mr. President, $32 billion is for discretionary 
spending; the remainder

[[Page 18023]]

is for mandatory programs or the allocation of funds that are collected 
under other provisions of law. This represents an almost 10-percent 
increase in funding for the next fiscal year as compared with the 
funding that is appropriated for this fiscal year, 2004.
  The fiscal year begins on October 1, as everyone knows. Substantial 
increases are included in this legislation for the activities of the 
Coast Guard as well as the Transportation Security Administration. The 
bill fully funds the President's requested activity for Project 
BioShield, which is a very important new endeavor to further enhance 
the security of our country against bioterrorism. The bill also 
provides funding for a new program that is designed to enhance security 
for our country by using new technologies to identify and verify 
visitors coming into the country using visas. This program is called 
United States Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology. Of 
course, it has its own acronym, US VISIT, so it is easy for us to 
remember.
  One other feature of this year's appropriations bill is the 
limitation that we are provided as a result of a provision included in 
the defense appropriations conference report that limits, in effect, 
the discretionary spending of all appropriations bills for fiscal year 
2005. The limitation is at a level of $821.9 billion. That is enforced 
through a mechanism of the Budget Act which permits points of order to 
be made on amendments that would seek to increase the bill's funding 
beyond the level of its allocation, which was established by the 
Appropriations Committee.
  We are pleased that the Senate has recognized the validity of that 
limitation. Yesterday we were able to exercise that point of order 
successfully to defeat amendments that would have increased spending 
beyond that allocated level of funding. We are at the limit of the 
allocation that is available to our subcommittee. The $32 billion in 
discretionary funding is the limitation that is provided to the 
Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Today we are pleased to consider any other amendments Senators may 
wish to offer. We are ready to debate and dispose of amendments. We can 
agree to some, I hope, and we are happy to work with Senators 
throughout the remainder of this session. We are happy the leader has 
indicated that any votes that may be ordered will go over to next week. 
There will not be any recorded votes on this bill today.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are now on the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                           Amendment No. 3578

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Baucus, I send an 
amendment to the desk. It is amendment No. 3578. I think it is already 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Baucus, for 
     himself, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Dorgan, 
     Mr. Levin, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. 
     Burns, proposes an amendment numbered 3578.

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

   (Purpose: To make available to the Under Secretary for Border and 
Transportation Security $200,000,000 to establish and operate air bases 
    in the States of Michigan, Montana, New York, North Dakota, and 
   Washington and to permit fees for certain customs services to be 
                     collected until June 1, 2005)

       On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 515. (a) The total amount appropriated by title II for 
     the Office of the Under Secretary for Border and 
     Transportation Security under the heading ``air and marine 
     interdiction, operations, maintenance, and procurement'' is 
     hereby increased by $200,000,000. Of such total amount, as so 
     increased, $200,000,000 shall be available for the 
     establishment and operation of air bases in the States of 
     Michigan, Montana, New York, North Dakota, and Washington.
       (b) Section 13031(j)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)) is amended 
     by striking ``March 1, 2005'' and inserting ``June 1, 2005''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is quite an important amendment for 
our Nation's security. I think it will help strengthen a key component 
of our national security strategy. We all know our Nation's security 
begins here at home, by securing our land borders, our airspace, and 
also our maritime ports. As we work to get the latest explosive 
screening technology in our airports, or to inspect more containers 
arriving in our Nation's ports, we should not forget the critical role 
of our vast northern border.
  Contrary to what some people may think, out on the northern border we 
are no strangers to illegal crossings. The topography in my State of 
Montana makes it very difficult to protect our border. Customs and 
Border Patrol are doing a great job with the resources they have, but 
Immigration and Customs enforcement investigators are just a little bit 
undermanned. They share valuable information they collect on illegal 
entries with numerous agencies.
  But when it comes to tracking and intercepting unauthorized aircraft, 
our military planes fly much too high and too fast to provide proper 
service along our northern border. As we beef up our security on other 
borders, especially in the South and on the coasts, the northern border 
has become the Nation's backdoor that we cannot afford to leave 
unlocked.
  While I am pleased the Department of Homeland Security has just 
established the first of five planned airbases along the northern 
border that Congress authorized nearly 2 years ago, I am also quite 
concerned. Why? Because the pace is so slow in standing up these bases. 
One of the sites the Department of Homeland Security has chosen is in 
Great Falls, MT. Between Malmstrom Air Force Base, the Air Force 
National Guard at Great Falls International Airport, and the community 
that supports these assets, we are ready to take on this new mission. 
We are ready. We are set. We are happy. We are glad. We want to do it. 
The mission is to help secure the northern border, not just for our 
State of Montana but for all Americans.
  However, we are told we will have to wait. We will have to wait for 
more than 3 years to get the planned airbase up and running in Great 
Falls. With all due respect, I do not think as a nation we can wait. We 
cannot afford to wait.
  There are too many problems with the current funding schedule for the 
northern border air wing. First, the schedule is stretched out over far 
too long a period of several years. Once the first base in Bellingham, 
WA, is really up and running, what is going to happen? It is pretty 
obvious. Drug runners and other would-be terrorists and malcontents 
will simply move eastward toward Montana's northern border, and still 
further east over other parts of our northern border.
  Under the current funding schedule, they are going to enjoy a full 3 
years of exploiting the gaps in our Air Wing coverage before all five 
bases along the northern border--that is, the States of Washington, 
Montana, North Dakota, Michigan, and New York--have been established.
  There is a second problem. What is that? It is that the budget allows 
just enough money to buy each base its requisite planes: two 
helicopters and a fixed-wing aircraft. But once each base opens its 
doors, it won't even be able to operate 5 days a week for 8 hours a 
day. The dollars just are not there for the operation. So I say, when 
it comes to securing our Nation, obviously, this is not good enough. We 
have to get up and running right away.

[[Page 18024]]

  Two months ago, when a plane deviated from its course over 
Washington, DC--we all remember it--the Air and Marine Operations 
Command and Control at March Air Force Base in Riverside, CA, was 
watching--way out in California. Local aircraft were dispatched, and 
the Capitol complex was emptied. Luckily, it was just the Governor of 
Kentucky. I should not say ``just.'' It was the eminent Governor of 
Kentucky. But the system worked because a local plane was available and 
staffed to respond. The folks in Riverside are responsible for 
detecting unauthorized aircraft flying at low altitudes anywhere in the 
United States, but so far they have just one plane, staffed barely 40 
hours a week, in Washington State, to dispatch if they get a hit 
anywhere on the 3,000-plus-mile-long northern border.
  So let's be clear. Congress has already authorized the establishment 
of a northern border air wing with five airbases that will be 
responsible for tracking, identifying, and intercepting any 
unauthorized aircraft that attempts to cross the northern border into 
U.S. airspace. But if we are going to take securing the northern border 
seriously, then we must take funding seriously. So my amendment makes 
sure the funding is there to get all five airbases operational 7 days a 
week this next year.
  I thank very much the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Cochran, 
and thank Senator Byrd, and many others, for helping to work to get 
this crucial amendment in order so it will be adopted and, more 
importantly, to make America safer.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Montana for his 
amendment and Senator Frist and Senator Cochran for their cooperation 
in working on this amendment. This amendment provides $170 million for 
four homeland security programs, in addition to the $200 million 
provided for security on the Northern border.
  First, $50 million is included for the fire grant program. With this 
amendment, the total in the bill for equipping and training fire 
personnel is $750 million, an increase of $4 million over fiscal year 
2004. Last year, the Department received over $2.6 billion of 
applications from 20,366 applicants. Clearly, there is a real need for 
this additional funding.
  Second, the amendment provides $50 million for the Federal air 
marshals program. Last year, despite the continuing terrorist threat to 
our airlines and despite the fact that the number of flights grew by 6 
percent last year, the number of Federal air marshals fell by 9 
percent. This amendment will reverse that trend and allow the 
Department to move toward the staffing goal that was established after 
9/11.
  Third, $50 million is provided for grants to nonprofit organizations, 
to help secure their at-risk facilities. Numerous reports from the 
Department of Homeland Security and the FBI indicate that al-Qaida has 
turned its focus to so-called soft targets such as hospitals, 
universities and houses of worship.
  Finally, the amendment provides $20 million for the Emergency 
Management Performance Grants program. This valuable program provides 
resources to States to prepare for all types of emergencies. The 
program's all-hazards planning approach ensures that States prepare, 
not just for terrorist attacks, but also for hurricanes, floods, 
earthquakes and other types of disasters.
  Again, I thank the Senators for their cooperation and I urge adoption 
of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                Amendment No. 3616 to Amendment No. 3578

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

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist], for himself, Mr. 
     Byrd, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Specter, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Voinovich, 
     Mr. DeWine, Mr. Burns, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. 
     Murray, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 3616 
     to amendment No. 3578.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 2, line 5 insert:
       ``(b) The total amount appropriated under the heading 
     ``IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS'' 
     is hereby increased by $50,000,000. Of such total amount, as 
     so increased, $50,000,000 is for the continued operations of 
     the Federal Air Marshals program.
       ``(c) The total amount appropriated under the heading 
     ``OFFICE OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION AND 
     PREPAREDNESS, STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS'' is hereby increased 
     by $50,000,000. Of such total amount, as so increased, 
     $50,000,000 is for discretionary assistance to non-profit 
     organizations (as defined under section 501(c)(3) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986) determined by the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security to be at high-risk of international 
     terrorist attacks.
       ``(d) The total amount appropriated under the heading 
     ``OFFICE OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION AND 
     PREPAREDNESS, FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS'' is hereby 
     increased by $50,000,000. Of such total amount, as so 
     increased, $50,000,000 is for the program authorized by 
     section 33 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 
     1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229).
       ``(e) The total amount appropriated under the heading 
     ``OFFICE OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION AND 
     PREPAREDNESS, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS'' is 
     hereby increased by $20,000,000. Of such total amount, as so 
     increased, $20,000,000 is for emergency management 
     performance grants.''.
       On page 2, line 5 strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(f)''.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this is an amendment worked out in a 
bipartisan manner with the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee and the ranking member of 
the Finance Committee. I thank Senators Cochran, Byrd, and Baucus for 
their cooperation. This is an amendment that is cosponsored by Senators 
Byrd, Cochran, Specter, Murkowski, Voinovich, DeWine, Burns, Clinton, 
Mikulski, and Murray. It is a very simple amendment but an important 
amendment to provide a small amount of additional resources for some 
critical areas in our war against terrorism here at home.
  The Baucus amendment extends custom user fees that will expire next 
March. He extends the fee for 3 months. This extension increases the 
offsetting receipts in the Federal budget by $370 million during that 
period of time. Senator Baucus uses these additional resources to 
increase funds for a northern border protection program. Senator Burns 
is also a cosponsor of that amendment. However, the Baucus-Burns 
amendment allocates $200 million of resources for this activity, 
leaving approximately $170 million in additional resources to fund 
other homeland security programs.
  Working with Senators on both sides of the aisle, Senator Byrd and I 
have crafted a second-degree amendment that further targets this 
additional $170 million in funds as follows: An additional $50 million 
for firefighters--Senator Murkowski and other Senators have been 
supporters of finding additional funds for our dedicated firefighters; 
an additional $50 million for Federal air marshals; $50 million for 
501(c) nonprofit organizations that the Secretary of Homeland Security 
determines to be at risk of terrorist attacks--I, along with Senators 
Specter, Byrd, and Mikulski, have focused on the need to provide 
assistance to these soft targets as churches, synagogues, mosques, and 
various nongovernmental organizations that can fall prey to terrorists 
are at risk--and an additional $20 million to emergency management 
performance grants. This is a program strongly supported on both sides 
of the aisle--on our side, championed by Senator Voinovich--to meet the 
needs of our State and local governments.
  I believe the amendment has been cleared on both sides. I appreciate 
once again the cooperation of all involved in finding a way to provide 
additional resources to this important bill without violating the 
Budget Act or adding to the Federal deficit. Again, these amendments 
have been worked out on both sides of the aisle, and I urge their 
adoption.

[[Page 18025]]


  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss an 
amendment which I have been working on since the Subcommittee on 
Homeland Security marked up the bill in July which would provide much-
needed resources to address the security needs of high-risk nonprofits. 
I am pleased that we have worked out a compromise where this language 
will be included as part of Senator Baucus's amendment on custom user 
fees. This language will appropriate $50 million for a program at the 
Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to provide security enhancements 
and training to nonprofit organizations determined to be at high risk 
of international terrorist attacks. Funds would be distributed by DHS 
based on risk assessments, in consultation with State and local 
authorities.
  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 assistance is intended for basic security 
enhancements to protect American citizens from car bombs and other 
lethal terrorist attacks. It is intended to be used for installation of 
equipment such as concrete barriers, blast-proof doors, mylar window 
coatings, and hardened parking lot gates, as well as associated 
training.
  The Director of Central Intelligence has stated that al-Qaida has 
turned its attention to ``soft targets.'' Al-Qaida's willingness to 
attack soft targets of all types has been made readily apparent with 
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, airports, 
restaurants, night clubs, and cultural and community centers.
  Many of these soft targets are nonprofit organizations which provide 
vital health, social, community, educational, and other services to 
millions of Americans every day. If nonprofit organizations are forced 
to divert funds to cover the entire cost of security measures, those 
funds will deplete resources for vital human services, including 
capacity to respond to disasters.
  I have been encourage to support this language by a wide cross 
section of America's nonprofits. Supporters of this measure include: 
American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging; American 
Jewish Committee; American Jewish Congress; American Red Cross; 
American Society of Association Executives; Association of Art Museum 
Directors; 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; United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; United Way of 
America; and YMCA of the USA.
  The assistance would be delivered pursuant to pending authorizing 
legislation which Senator Mikulski and I have introduced as S. 2275 
which was ordered reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee. I 
thank the chairman and other Senators involved in moving this important 
amendment forward, and I urge my colleagues to support this effort 
through the conference committee and to the President's desk.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to support and cosponsor 
Senator Frist's second-degree amendment to provide much-needed funding 
for homeland security. This amendment provides increased funding in 
three vital areas, Federal air marshals, fire grants and emergency 
management grants, and for the first time, it would give assistance to 
nonprofit institutions that are at high risk of terrorist attack.
  Insuring that the brave men and women who are our first responders 
have the resources they need is one of my highest priorities. We must 
do our best to protect the protectors and they protect us everyday. 
These are the people who risk their lives to keep us safe. The bill 
before us today actually cuts funding and the step we take today to 
increase funding by $50 million for the fire grant program is a step in 
the right direction. But it is a first step.
  Our Nation's firefighters need more resources. They need to replace 
aging fire engines and rescue vehicles, and they need self-contained 
breathing masks. Additional money for the Fire Grant Program is not 
just about new equipment--it is about saving lives. It is about making 
sure that our firefighters and rescue workers are well prepared, 
whether it is a terrorist attack or a hurricane. These brave men and 
women will be the first on the scene and we need to make sure that they 
have the tools they need to protect against threats to American lives.
  It is my hope that as we proceed with this bill in the coming days, 
we will be able to add additional funding to provide the resources that 
fire departments across the Nation so desperately need. That is why I 
applaud my colleagues for taking this first step--the next step is to 
ensure that we include additional funding to bring this model program 
up to the full funding level of $900 million. On Monday, I will offer 
an amendment to take that final step and make sure that our 
firefighters have all the resources that they need. I hope that my 
colleagues will join me then as we have all joined Senator Frist today, 
in supporting those much needed increases in fire grant funding.
  This amendment also takes a great first step in helping nonprofit 
organizations who are at risk for terrorist attack. As the majority 
leader knows, I have worked closely with my colleague from 
Pennsylvania, Senator Specter on legislation to create a program to 
help nonprofits who serve communities throughout the Nation but who are 
threatened daily by the risk terrorist attack. Today, I am proud to 
provide funding to make our communities stronger and safer by 
protecting these ``soft targets'' of terrorism all over the United 
States.
  We are all aware of recent terrorist attacks in the United States, 
Spain, Germany, Iraq, Tunisia, Kenya, Morocco, and Turkey. These 
attacks by al-Qaida on an international Red Cross building, synagogues, 
train stations, hotels, airports, restaurants, night clubs, and 
cultural centers, show its willingness to attack ``soft targets'' of 
all types in order to conduct its campaign of terror.
  I want to make sure that our communities are safe and the buildings 
where citizens live, learn, and work are strong and secure to safeguard 
American lives in the vent of a terrorist attack. Local communities are 
on the front lines in our war against terrorism. This Congress must do 
its share to make sure that they do not have to bear the full cost of 
this war. We can do that by helping to provide funds for security 
enhancements in buildings that Americans visit everyday.
  In this amendment we simply provide an additional $50 million to 
enhance the security and safety of high-risk nonprofits. This funding 
will jumpstart the effort to make security improvements to these ``soft 
targets'' of terrorism. These nonprofits are worried now, they are 
under threat now, and then need our help now. This Congress must act 
now to make these nonprofits and the communities that they serve safer 
and stronger.
  As a Nation, our priority in fighting the war on terror is to be 
safer, stronger, and smarter so that we are able to better detect, 
prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. This bill gets us one step 
closer to meeting those goals by making vulnerable targets smarter in 
detecting and preventing terrorist attacks and by making sure that if 
terror strikes one of these facilities, security and safety measures 
are in place to protect the lives of those inside and around these 
buildings.
  Nothing the Senate does is more important than providing America 
security and Americans safety. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment because it does exactly that. In the battle to protect our 
Nation from terrorist attacks, we must be sure to provide assistance to 
first responders and to these high-risk nonprofit organizations that 
provide vital health, social,

[[Page 18026]]

cultural, and educational services to the American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3616.
  The amendment (No. 3616) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 3578, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3578, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 3578) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, earlier this morning, Chairman Cochran 
offered on my behalf a bipartisan amendment that was adopted. Combined 
with the second degree bipartisan amendment I offered to Senator 
Baucus's amendment, we have provided almost $700 million in additional 
funds in this bill to enhance programs for our domestic security.
  We did this without increasing the Federal deficit, because the 
increased spending was offset with the extension until September 2005 
an expiring custom user fee. That extension raised nearly $700 million.
  Let me be the first to acknowledge that this offset is included in 
other legislation that is in various conferences such as the FSC bill 
and the highway bill. But until legislation is enacted to truly extend 
this provision, it remains a real offset.
  Final legislation will sort out the use of this offset before it 
becomes law.
  The amendment I offered and cosponsored by Senator Cochran, Byrd and 
Voinovich provided increased resources for critical areas of homeland 
security:
  An additional $120 million for Customs and Border Protection, 
Salaries and Expenses. Some of these funds will be used to provide for 
radiation detection devices, additional border inspectors and border 
patrol agents;
  an additional $80 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to 
provide additional investigation personnel and additional detention 
facilities;
  an additional $81 million for rail and transit security grants;
  and an additional $36 million for State and Local Governments' 
emergency management performance grants.
  Again I thank all of my colleagues who worked on this amendment and 
appreciate the cooperation of Senator Byrd in finding a responsible 
approach to increased homeland security funding while not adding to the 
Federal deficit this next year.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, although I will be speaking on 
intelligence matters and other matters relating to the CR, I ask 
unanimous consent that my statement not be considered a violation of 
the Pastore rule and I be able to speak on general matters.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Problems with a Continuing Resolution

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, a lot of people are talking about a 
continuing resolution for appropriations this year. This is not a 
normal year. This is the end of Congress. This Congress goes out of 
being. We will come back next year and have to deal with new bills. I 
want to talk a little bit about the problem of a continuing resolution 
for a series of bills.
  For instance, my State had over 5 million acres of timberland burned 
this year. Forest fires were just enormous. We have provided in the 
Interior bill moneys for hazardous fuels reduction to try to reduce the 
fires, really, on some of the wildlands of the United States. If we had 
that money we could probably prevent what we call follow-on fires. 
Where lightning fires strike, the next year they strike almost in the 
same place. The next year they strike almost in the same place. But as 
they do in years following a fire, they are hitting timber that has 
been dried out, burned, dried out, and it is just like kindling. It 
just causes the whole area to burn more and then more and then more. 
The way to stop that is to do the hazardous fire reduction program, go 
into the area that burned and take that timber out--try to plant new 
trees, but at least do something to prevent a follow-on fire the 
following year. If the Interior bill doesn't pass, there will not be 
that money available.
  We have additional money for the Indian Health Service this year. We 
have had substantial problems in health areas in the Indian community. 
That money wouldn't be available under a CR.
  Many people don't know what a CR is. It is a continuing resolution 
which continues the moneys that were appropriated in 2003 to be spent 
in 2004; now that same amount of money is going to be spent in 2005. 
Judgments of 2003 of what should be happening in 2004 are not valid in 
2005. We need each of these bills this year more than we ever have 
before.
  Take, for instance, the hurricanes that just happened. We have in the 
budget request what is called the beach renourishment policy. It is a 
one-time funded program to try to replace some of these beaches that 
have been lost in the hurricane season. There are approximately 43 
projects already outlined that have to be funded this year in order to 
undertake this new concept. It is sort of like the fires concept. If we 
move in and repair these beaches now, a subsequent follow-on hurricane 
will not aggravate the damage and leave even further destruction in the 
area. Again, unless we get the Energy and Water bill, it will not be 
done. There will be no dredging of the low-use waterway and harbors 
that have had extensive damage. These hurricanes change the bottom of 
the sea in the areas adjacent to the shore of where the hurricanes come 
ashore. We need new money to deal with that. The only way to get it is 
to get an Energy and Water appropriations bill passed.
  If you look at the Department of Energy, we have a whole series of 
items requested by the President and approved by the Appropriations 
Committee on energy and water. The budget this year requests $1.16 
billion more than was enacted for this fiscal year of 2004. A 
continuing resolution will carry the figures for 2004 forward as long 
as the continuing resolution continues until Congress passes a bill 
next year.
  But meanwhile, the money that is needed for security and the 
safeguard problems of our national weapons labs, the President asked 
for $706 million to make those laboratories more safe and more secure.
  He asked for $6.9 billion in energy environmental management 
activities. That is an increase over 2004. This is expected to have a 
specific effect on the environmental cleanup activities in Tennessee, 
Washington, Idaho, and South Carolina.
  In terms of energy supply, we have money this year for energy 
research, including renewable resources such as hydrogen, solar, wind, 
and biomass. The President's request this year is $835 million, a 13-
percent increase over 2004.
  I will come back later. I don't want to monopolize the time. I keep 
reminding the Senate that we cannot operate under a CR for 2005. It is 
not possible.
  Take the Department of Agriculture: The 2005 bill is not passed and 
the medical device user fee authority expires at the end of this fiscal 
year because we did not provide the required level of funding 
authority. This bill takes care of that. If the bill does not pass, 
there won't be funding to maintain the participation rates for the WIC 
Program. The budget request is underestimated by over $300 million. 
That would be required to continue the program in 2005.

[[Page 18027]]

That would not be available under 2004 money.
  This Homeland Security bill is an example. If it does not pass, the 
counterterrorism food safety money for FDA will not be available.
  There are a whole series of things. I am sure the chairman, my 
distinguished friend from Mississippi, has described that in more 
detail.
  But the real problem with our thinking about a continuing resolution 
is money would not be available to other Departments to meet emergency 
situations--some caused by natural events such as hurricanes and fires 
and others caused by changes in the security requirements of the 
departments of the Government which have security requirements. They 
are conducting their business differently now after the Department of 
Homeland Security examined how they handled buildings and security of 
employees. Each one of them now has a mandate to change the way they do 
business. We have provided the money for those new directions in the 
2005 bills. That money for the security of the Federal buildings will 
not be available under the 2004 program without substantial 
reprogramming, which couldn't be done until well into next year.
  I am trying to make the case for the Members of the Senate to think 
about getting all of these bills done this year. Don't think about a 
continuing resolution. A continuing resolution will not work for the 
appropriations process this year.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside for purposes of offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3617

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

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Lautenberg, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3617.

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

 (Purpose: To ensure that the Coast Guard has sufficient resources for 
                     its traditional core missions)

       On page 14, line 2, strike ``$5,153,220,000, of which 
     $1,090,000,000 shall be for defense-related activities;'' and 
     insert ``5,253,220,000 of which $1,090,000,000 shall be for 
     defense-related activities; and of which, $100,000,000 shall 
     be for non-homeland security missions defined by Sec. 
     888(a)(1) of Public Law 107-296.''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this amendment calls for $100 million for 
the U.S. Coast Guard. Senator Lautenberg at a subsequent time will come 
and debate this matter. It is my understanding that the leadership 
wishes to have this as one of the votes that would occur on Monday 
evening.


                           Amendment No. 3618

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Frist, 
Byrd, and Voinovich, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Frist, 
     for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Voinovich, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3618.

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

  (Purpose: To make available to the Department of Homeland Security 
                           additional funds)

       On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec.   . (a) The total amount appropriated under the 
     heading ``CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, SALARIES AND 
     EXPENSES'' is hereby increased by $120,000,000. Of such total 
     amount, as so increased, $40,000,000 is provided for 
     radiation detection devices, $40,000,000 is provided for 
     additional border inspectors, and $40,000,000 is provided for 
     additional border patrol agents.
       ``(b) The total amount appropriated under the heading 
     ``IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, SALARIES AND 
     EXPENSES'' is hereby increased by $80,000,000. Of such total 
     amount, as so increased, $40,000,000 is provided for 
     additional investigator personnel, and $40,000,000 is 
     provided for detention and removal bedspace and removal 
     operations.
       ``(c) The total amount appropriated under the heading 
     ``OFFICE OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION AND 
     PREPAREDNESS, STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS'' is hereby increased 
     by $81,000,000. The total amount provided in the 
     aforementioned heading for discretionary grants is increased 
     by $81,000,000. Of that total amount, as so increased, the 
     amount for rail and transit security grants is increased by 
     $81,000,000.
       ``(d) The total amount appropriated under heading ``OFFICE 
     OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION AND PREPAREDNESS, 
     EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS'' is hereby increased 
     by $36,000,000. Of such total amount, as so increased, 
     $36,000,000 is provided for emergency management performance 
     grants.
       ``(e) In Section 13031(j)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 as amended by this bill, 
     strike ``June 1, 2005'' and insert ``September 30, 2005.''

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment increases funding for the 
Department of Homeland Security fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill. 
It is fully offset by an extension of customs user fees to September 
30, 2005.
  Specifically, this amendment will add funds for the following 
programs:
  $40 million for additional radiation detection devices,
  $40 million for additional border inspectors,
  $40 million for additional border patrol agents,
  $40 million for additional investigators,
  $40 million for detention and removals of illegal aliens,
  $81 million for additional rail and transit security grants, and
  $36 million for additional emergency management performance grants.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as indicated by the cosponsor of this 
amendment, it is totally supported on this side. We appreciate the 
chairman of the committee moving forward on this most important 
amendment to increase funding for these agencies as set forth therein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, this question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3618) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Is it 
appropriate now in morning business for the Senator from New Mexico to 
speak?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not in morning business.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak for up 
to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.


                             Demand for Oil

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I want to share some highlights from 
this week's news about oil and its effect on our economy. Yesterday's 
Washington Post quoted Dr. Alan Greenspan's testimony before the House 
Budget Committee.

       The economy is doing reasonably well. If it weren't for the 
     oil spike, I would be very optimistic where the economy is 
     going.

  Chairman Greenspan said the spring surge in energy prices weakened 
the economy more than analysts expected. He suggested that uncertainty 
about oil prices continues to cloud the economic outlook.

[[Page 18028]]

  Financial analysts have also lowered the forecast expectations for 
our American economy growth over the next year. For example, an 
economist with Global Insight said:

       Persistent high prices of oil remain a shadow over the 
     recovery.

  On Wednesday, the President of OPEC stated that high oil prices would 
undermine the economies of the United States and Europe by 2 percent. 
These high prices exist primarily because of soaring demand for oil in 
tightly stretched markets.
  In its weekly report, the Energy Information Administration reported 
that spare capacity to pump more oil is near the lowest in decades. EIA 
said global oil production is running around 99 percent of estimated 
capacity. Just yesterday, the EIA stated in its short-time market 
outlook that it expected oil prices to average $40 until mid-2005 
despite OPEC efforts to increase oil production. Low surplus capacity 
is obviously with us. Similarly, the Paris-based International Energy 
Agency acknowledged the same. Given the limited spare capacity, some 
people are worried about whether there will be sufficient oil to meet 
demand. We all know what that will do if it continues.
  Yesterday in the Wall Street Journal there was an article entitled, 
``Demand for Oil Could Outstrip Supply.'' In the article, the 
Washington-based oil-forecasting group, PFC Energy, warned that the 
energy industry may be without the capacity to produce sufficient oil 
to meet the needs. In their study, the PFC maintains the world will not 
be able to produce more than 100 million barrels a day, only 20 percent 
more than the current global supply of 82 million barrels a day.
  Oil analysts who believe we are running out of oil or that we have 
peaked are still in the minority, but the numbers are getting more and 
more ominous. We should heed these warnings.
  PFC concluded that the limits of global oil production will mean the 
demand for oil will have to be curbed and alternative sources of energy 
will have to be found.
  Herman Franssen, the President of PFC and a former chief economist 
for the International Energy Agency, said the PFC's conclusion tells 
policymakers that they have a decade to put our house in order. For 
instance, it takes that long to retool the car industry to use another 
fuel. We must begin working on that, and we are. Well, we do not have a 
decade to put our house in order. We cannot afford to wait until the 
house crashes in around us taking our economy, our energy security, and 
our future well-being down with it.
  We need to act now before this session of Congress ends. We must show 
the American people that our economy and our energy security matter, 
that they are important.
  We must show the American people we are willing to take steps to 
lessen our oil dependency by producing alternative sources of fuel that 
sends a signal to the world we are going to have more natural gas 
because we take steps, with far more renewables, that we are going to 
clean up coal so we can use it. Yes, we may even provide some 
incentives so we might produce a few nuclear powerplants to add to this 
fast pace. We need to correct the shortcomings of our electricity 
supply so we do not have any blackouts anymore.
  Well, guess where these things and more are found. They are not 
running around in the sky. They are not here in the rhetoric. They are 
in a bill. They are in an energy bill. We produced it and we lost it by 
two votes. Those who said they did not like it on the Democrat side 
said it was because of an additive clause regarding MTBE. It is a 
Government-approved additive. There was something in the bill that said 
we are going to protect those who manufacture it because they are not 
to blame for what happens downstream. However, we were led to believe 
that was enough to kill the bill. We took it out.
  Madam President, up there at the desk, ready to be called up, ready 
to become our energy policy--because the House will accept it with some 
modification of MTBE that will not be the hold-harmless provision, but 
yet we do not get anything from the other side that indicates they 
would let us have a bill, they would let us pass a bill.
  I think the American people--because we have not called the bill up 
and let them kill it like they did one time, two times--are wondering. 
But I do not want them to wonder anymore. We have a very good energy 
bill. We have it ready to get passed. If the question is, Why haven't 
you done it, it is not on this side. It is not on this chairman who 
worked 18 months to get a bill, with a lot of help from all sides, and 
ultimately the House. It is the Democrats who will not let us get this 
bill, plain and simple.
  If anybody on that side in a position of authority--the leader on 
that side, Senator Bingaman on that side--would say, well, we need an 
energy bill, we are part of the problem in America, we want to solve 
it--if they just say that, Americans, we would have a bill in 24 hours. 
I urge that we try to do that.
  I am very concerned we are short of oil, but we are not sending any 
signals that we are going to have a major policy shift that will permit 
us to have alternatives and not become dependent on the world for 
natural gas. Can you imagine that with the chief new energy source--
natural gas--we are moving in the direction, without this energy bill, 
where soon we will say: What happened? We are in the same muddle on 
natural gas as oil. We will become dependent on foreign countries.
  Pretty soon we will say, well, we use natural gas to fuel our 
powerplants because it is clean. We are using it in our homes and 
businesses because it is great. But what do you think about that? We 
are dependent on foreign countries again.
  We are leaving offshore natural gas, which can be drilled for, we are 
leaving it there because we need to change some rules or they cannot do 
it. We are leaving natural gas in Alaska that can be used--not the 
argument over crude oil in the wilderness area; that should be done for 
America, but that is not the issue in this bill. In this bill it is 
natural gas, in large quantities, delivered to Chicago for dispersion 
in America. Why don't we do that? Well, we cannot do it if we cannot 
pass a bill.
  So I do not need the whole 10 minutes. Perhaps I made my point. I 
hope so. I have been here twice this week. I guarantee you, if we do 
not make some movement soon, some people on the other side are going to 
get tired of seeing me down here, but I will be here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside 
the pending amendments so I can propose an amendment to the current 
Homeland Security appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3619

  Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senators Lautenberg, Schumer, and Boxer, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Corzine], for himself, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, Mr. Schumer, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3619.

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

  (Purpose: To appropriate an additional $100,000,000 to enhance the 
                      security of chemical plants)

       On page 19, line 17, strike ``$2,845,081,000'' and all that 
     follows through ``grants'' on page 20, line 11, and insert 
     the following: ``$2,945,081,000, 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 the date of 
     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

[[Page 18029]]

     to local governments within 60 days after the grant award; 
     and
       ``(2) $1,300,000,000 for discretionary grants for use in 
     high-threat, high-density urban areas, as determined by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security: Provided, That $150,000,000 
     shall be for port security grants; $15,000,000 shall be for 
     trucking industry security grants; $10,000,000 shall be for 
     intercity bus security grants; $150,000,000 shall be for rail 
     and transit security grants; $100,000,000 shall be for 
     enhancing the security of chemical plants''.

  Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, this amendment addresses one of the 
most serious security threats facing our Nation: the threat of a 
terrorist attack on a chemical facility. As in my State, the great 
State of North Carolina has had some accidents with regard to chemical 
plants recently, and many people believe it is one of the greatest 
vulnerabilities in our infrastructure.
  I have discussed this issue many times, as it is vital to my State, 
which has a heavy concentration of chemical plant facilities. There are 
thousands of these facilities across the Nation that can release and 
expose tens of thousands of Americans to highly toxic gases--some 
fatal, some leading to great illness. It should not be lost on the 
American public that we will be remembering the 20th anniversary of 
Bhopal this year where as many as 7,000 people have ultimately passed 
from a chemical plant explosion. It was tragic at the time.
  There are many other instances, and there is a great risk associated 
with these plants. The reality is that many of them were built at an 
earlier time in our economy where now there are surrounding densely 
populated areas. That is why this has been a great concern to people 
who think about homeland security right in our neighborhoods. It is the 
reason we need to make sure that what could be attractive targets for 
terrorists are properly addressed in the Homeland Security 
appropriations process.
  Unfortunately, there are currently no Federal standards for chemical 
facilities. The private sector has been left to do whatever it chooses 
completely on a voluntary basis. I believe there are many chemical 
facilities where people have done a good job. It is in their self-
interest to protect their employees, themselves, their proprietary 
interests, and they have done a good job. But that does not mean that 
all facilities have. Quite frankly, since there are no standards and no 
accountability requirements, we don't know. We are vulnerable, at least 
according to all of the experts who review homeland security. We are 
putting at risk literally millions of Americans. It is an unacceptable 
risk, from my standpoint.
  According to EPA, there are 123 facilities in 24 States where a 
chemical release could expose more than 1 million people to highly 
toxic chemicals. We have a chart showing where about 100,000 Americans 
are at risk. But there are 123, 8 of which are in my State, where 1 
million people could be exposed to toxic chemicals. There are about 750 
facilities in 39 States where a chemical release could expose more than 
100,000 people, and there are nearly 3,000 facilities spread across 49 
States where a chemical release could expose more than 10,000 people to 
toxic chemicals.
  It is a broad problem around the Nation. It is acknowledged. I have 
discussed many times this issue in the Senate Chamber, on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. It needs to be addressed. I 
don't think we ought to be discussing this after there is a problem; we 
ought to be talking about it and correcting the issue ahead of time. 
There are no standards. The numbers are pretty staggering.
  There are others who might define exposure somewhat differently. I 
noticed recently the Department of Homeland Security, instead of 
looking at a 360-degree circumference around a chemical plant, has 
tried to talk about the prevailing wind patterns in an area and lower 
the numbers. But we are still talking about literally millions of 
Americans being exposed to the possibility of toxic air masses coming 
out of one of these plants. It is time to act. It is not enough to just 
use words and talk about voluntary standards. Frankly, there is ongoing 
work in the EPW Committee to come up with a compromise proposal. I am 
supportive of the idea that we want to move forward.
  This security issue is real and present and needs to be dealt with. 
In fact, the Department of Justice, a year and a half before September 
11, issued a report on April 16, 2000, about chemical plants. That was 
mentioned in the Hart-Rudman report. In almost every situation that 
someone speaks to homeland security, chemical plants show up in the 
discussion. But the Justice Department writes in the April 18, 2000, 
report:

       We have concluded the risk of terrorists attempting in the 
     foreseeable future to cause an industrial chemical release is 
     both real and credible . . . Increasingly, terrorists 
     engineer their attacks to cause mass casualties to the 
     populace and/or large-scale damage to property. Terrorists or 
     other criminals are likely to view the potential of a 
     chemical release from an industrial facility as a relatively 
     attractive means of achieving these goals.

  It couldn't be stated more clearly. And that was before September 11. 
If we thought there were risks then, we have to believe there are risks 
now. That report should have awakened us.
  We have comments after September 11 from people who are importantly 
involved in our homeland security efforts. For example, in 
congressional testimony, Governor Ridge said:

       The fact is, we have a very diversified economy and our 
     enemies look at some of our economic assets as targets. And 
     clearly, the chemical facilities are one of them. We know 
     that there have been reports validated about security 
     deficiencies at dozens and dozens of [plants].

  Let me tell you about some of the reports to which Governor Ridge may 
have been referring. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review conducted a major 
investigation about chemical plant security across the country--
Pennsylvania, Houston, Chicago, New Jersey, elsewhere. They found that 
intruders had unfettered access to some of the Nation's deadliest 
stockpiles of toxins and explosives. Security was so lax that in broad 
daylight a reporter could easily walk up to tanks, pipes, and control 
rooms. If there is any intellectual integrity in these reports, this is 
absolute proof that we have inconsistency, at best, with regard to 
implementation of security requirements or security arrangements at a 
lot of our chemical plants.
  I am not just relying on press reports. In fact, I have visited 
chemical facilities myself, seen lax security, some in my own State. 
The fact is, we have to move on this. I visited one plant in New Jersey 
that had gaping holes in the security fence. Along with a reporter from 
CBS 60 Minutes, I walked right onto a plant. This is one that was a 
member of the society that is espousing voluntary standards. While it 
was not all that much fun moving into one of these plants, it was easy 
to have accomplished. Had we been terrorists with just a small 
explosive device, we could have easily caused a tragic and truly 
catastrophic release of toxic chemicals.
  It is uncertain about what the loss of life would be, but it happened 
to be another plant in New Jersey that is located right under a 
freeway, with no guards or anything to keep somebody from pulling up, 
faking a flat tire, and tossing a hand grenade over the side wall of an 
overpass into a chemical plant facility. It is actually one of the 
largest exposures of the various plants in America. And, again, it was 
a plant that was a member of the Chemical Society, which talks about 
standards.
  This is something which I think we need to recognize, that it is not 
always the highest common denominator we have to work with. We have to 
worry about the exposures at the lowest common denominator. It is a 
real threat and problem. We need to address that.
  Let me add that I have not come down to bash the chemical industry, 
because I don't believe this is representative of everyone in the 
industry. Many are doing everything the standards ask and call for. We 
need to assure the American people we are doing that everywhere. We 
would not accept that we have OK security at one nuclear powerplant but 
not at another. We have standards and accountability applying to those 
situations because it is a risk to the people in and around those 
communities. We demand 100-

[[Page 18030]]

percent attention to detail. These plants can be as deadly and as 
negative for the communities they are in as anywhere else.
  We need to make sure everyone is acting in good faith--not only the 
good actors but everyone. That is why I feel so strongly that we need 
to move the kind of legislation Chairman Inhofe is working on in the 
EPW Committee. We all need to get together and get away from purely 
voluntary standards and into something that is actually more important 
for all of us to do in order to make sure all facilities are addressed.
  That is why, 3 years ago, I first introduced the Chemical Security 
Act. My bill would have required chemical facilities to assess their 
vulnerabilities, establish priorities in the Nation, develop plans to 
improve security, and use inherently safer technologies. We have had to 
move away from that to get something done. But I think we still need 
those plans and we need accountability to make sure the plans are in 
place. I would like to see us work with safer technologies that are 
available. I think we can help some of the companies transition 
financially if that were necessary. But I do think we need to move 
forward.
  So far, we have not been able to get legislation passed and the 
exposure continues at least with some subset of the facilities around. 
I think it is time for us to move. I thought my approach was common 
sense, fairly simple, and it actually gave a lot of flexibility. It has 
been frustrating not to see this legislation dealt with. When it was 
first introduced, it got a 22-0 supporting vote in the EPW Committee, 
until the process of lobbying and other considerations came into play 
and a lot of folks backed away from it.
  I am hopeful people will wake up to the reality that there is real 
exposure in our communities. It is time to act. Hot air and lots of 
words by people doing television shows, ``60 Minutes,'' and writing 
newspaper articles is not enough. We need to have accountability and 
real standards to protect the American people. I know I feel that way 
about our folks in New Jersey, and I am going to feel as if I have not 
done my job if one of our plants is attacked and people lose lives 
because we have not done what we need to do to make sure they are safe. 
This is a place that recognizes the problem--by the way, every time we 
send out a Code Orange, we cite plant facilities as one of the areas 
that needs to be attended to by State and local law enforcement. That 
is where my amendment comes in today. I am not actually talking about 
this particular bill at this point in time. It actually hasn't come 
through another process.
  In this particular amendment, the appropriations bill, I think there 
is the opportunity to make a modest first step by appropriating money 
to support State and local efforts to enhance chemical plant security. 
As I said, when we raise the code levels, we are asking State and local 
folks to go out and provide extra security around these plants. By the 
way, you may wonder why the public is doing the work in providing the 
security; but since it is happening, I think we ought to provide 
resources to make that happen.
  The amendment I am introducing would provide $100 million for that 
purpose. Funds could be used, for example, to strengthen law 
enforcement's presence around chemical plants, prepare officials for 
responding to a terrorist attack in a chemical facility--a complicated 
issue, not exactly like fighting fire; it is somewhat different. It 
will provide assistance to plant managers and other steps State and 
local officials might take to protect their communities.
  This is a straightforward amendment. We need to put money and 
resources into this potentially deadly concern in our homeland 
security. Not unlike port and rail security, I think this is an area 
where there is general recognition that there is exposure and we need 
to move forward.
  As I have said, there are literally millions of people who have 
exposure. We have a legacy of these chemical plants being located in 
densely populated areas, not everywhere. We should prioritize. We ought 
to have a different standard for ammonia plants in South Dakota than 
when you are in Carney, NJ, in the midst of 12 million people in the 
metropolitan area of New Jersey and New York. There is a difference. 
But we need to make sure we have security plans that people are held 
accountable to, both industry and the local communities. So I am 
hopeful we will be able to positively consider this $100 million first 
step--a small step--and I will ask for a positive conclusion.
  Assuming that a point of order is raised against this amendment--I 
don't see anybody on the floor, but maybe the Chair will do it. It may 
not happen. I will leave that for another time. I hope we can have a 
positive consideration of this amendment to protect chemical plants.
  Madam President, I see the Senator from Massachusetts rising. I 
certainly don't want to stand in the way of his accessing the floor. I 
was going to speak as in morning business on the economy. I intended it 
to be for 10 to 15 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to wait. We look forward to hearing the 
Senator's assessment of the state of our economy today, as one of those 
who has critical insight and opinions regarding the economy. I know the 
Senate will benefit from his comments.
  Mr. CORZINE. I appreciate that courtesy from the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for up to 15 minutes to 
speak as in morning business with respect to the economy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              The Economy

  Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, over the summer, I came to the floor 
and gave a series of various discussions on something I care deeply 
about, at least from my background, and have some reason to have 
opinions about, and that is the state of our economy.
  It is absolutely vital for all of us in the Senate to try to get 
economic policies that put people to work and make sure the economy is 
growing in a way that everybody shares the benefits of America's 
bounty. I think there is a tremendous responsibility on all of our 
parts to be serious about examining policies that lead to long-term 
economic growth that can put us in a position where Americans are at 
work, they have access to health care, and they have access to a very 
constructive quality of life as we go forward.
  Quite obviously, I think we can do better. In fact, I am one who 
believes the 1990s was one of the greatest periods of economic well-
being our Nation has seen throughout its history. We can go through the 
litany of 22 million new jobs, incredibly solid productivity growth, 
went from huge budget deficits to a balanced budget.
  As one who came from the private sector, I saw incredible 
entrepreneurial energy in the 1990s. It maybe got a little too 
energetic at the close of the decade, but the fact was that we were 
moving ahead. Real wages were moving ahead. We were reducing poverty. 
There were lots of good indicators going on. We were actually beginning 
to edge away a little bit at even the health insurance problem in this 
country.
  Things have changed in the last 3\1/2\ years, for lots of reasons. We 
have suffered a very severe set of economic setbacks, in my view. One 
does not have to be a rocket scientist or analyst to understand that we 
have lost jobs, on balance, over the 3\1/2\ years. It may be growing at 
the moment, but the composite picture is we have lost jobs. We have not 
gained 22\1/2\ million; we have lost jobs. We have outsourced a lot of 
our high-quality jobs. We have lost whole industries to the exporting 
of jobs overseas.
  A lot of our manufacturing jobs--in New Jersey, we are down to one 
auto manufacturing plant that is going to close in another 18 months. 
It used to be the heart and soul of our business. We had a great 
textile industry, just like I am sure was the case in North Carolina. 
It is gone. Many of those jobs have gone overseas. The quality of jobs 
that have replaced them has often been lacking, certainly, in economic 
well-being, absolute status of those jobs, and benefits that accompany 
them.

[[Page 18031]]

  While we have had a recovery of sorts with regard to our stock 
market, we are still way off the top of where stock values were in the 
1990s, and certainly for the last year we have been bouncing along. 
There has been no direction and it is not one that I think anybody 
would say is a strong economic boon for those who are interested in 
equity values.
  Maybe more importantly, we have mortgaged our future. We have a 
budget deficit that exploded. We actually have another deficit, the 
trade deficit, the current account deficit, which are really long-run 
indicators of the eroding health of our economy. They may not bite us 
tomorrow or a month from now, but one cannot continue to have to borrow 
more money overseas to finance both personal debt and Federal 
Government debt--which is what we are doing right now with the kind of 
current account deficit--without having our dollar erode and the 
underlying values in America lost over a long period of time. It is 
coming. It is not whether, it is when.
  We have a zero savings rate in this country. That is not the way to 
build productive capacity as we go forward.
  There is a huge difference between the 1990s and where we are now. I 
think, though, when one puts all of this together, maybe the most 
significant problem facing our country gets down to the human level. It 
is the issue that is on the minds of individual Americans, and that is 
the continuing and dreadful squeeze that we see on the middle class.
  The vast majority of Americans who go to work every day, who drive 
this economy--two-thirds of our economy is driven by consumer 
expenditures, and that is the middle class. Those folks are suffering 
right now from what truly is a squeeze. Real income has declined. It is 
not debatable. It is real. The last 3\1/2\ years we have seen real 
income for the Americans who are in the lower 60 percent or the 60 
percent from the bottom up diminish even more than the top. But every 
American on average has lost real income in the last 3\1/2\ years. They 
have been forced to pay higher prices that have outstripped income.
  By the way, for the most vital elements of a family's budget, it is 
worse, it really is. Even though the Consumer Price Index might 
register one way, when one is talking about things that are absolutely 
vital to a family's well-being: health care, access to higher 
education, college tuition costs, energy prices to fuel the car and 
heat the home and keep the air-conditioner running, or property taxes, 
we may have cut taxes in Washington, but what is going on at the State 
and local level--in New Jersey, they are up about 10 percent each year 
over the last 3 years cumulative, and we have seen the real cost of 
living for individuals, apart from these questions of CPI and PPI and 
all the indexes, the things that really bite at an individual, the 
middle class family's pocketbook, has gone up.
  I think there is a real problem. Between 2000 and 2003, family income 
fell by $1,535 or 3 percent. In fact, it has declined every year under 
the current administration, and the declines have been even steeper for 
those who are not lucky. I talked about the 60 percent of families, 
building up from the lowest level income in the country, and there it 
has declined by 4.6 percent. So it is a real deal. This is not 
something that can be denied. These are factual numbers. It is 
something that we seem to turn our backs on.
  Contrast that with the record in the 1990s and during President 
Clinton's tenure in office. The typical family income increased $7,200 
compared to a $1,500 decline. I think that is a pretty decent standard 
to measure whether things are working for middle class Americans and 
for Americans in general.
  Let us look at what happened at the cost of living: gasoline prices 
up 19 percent over the last 3\1/2\ years, college tuition costs up 28 
percent, family health care premiums up 45 percent. I did not put out 
the figures on property taxes but, as I said, they have gone up 10 
percent each year in my home State. I know it is different in other 
places.
  Another cost that has gone up under President Bush, an indicator of 
the current state of our economy, is the cost of Medicare. Just 1 week 
ago today, mysteriously the Friday before Labor Day, we had an 
announcement that there has been a 17-percent increase in Medicare 
premium costs. It kind of gets lost in the shuffle, although I do not 
think this one is going to get lost because people are going to find 
out that they are paying a heck of a lot more for their Medicare 
premiums. We tried to slip through this 17-percent increase, which by 
the way is reflective of a 72-percent increase in Medicare premiums in 
the last 3\1/2\ years.
  By the way, from 1996 to 2000, it was 7 percent. Again, we are 
talking about the 1990s versus what we now see. Let us compare that 
with that little bit under 3-percent increase in Social Security 
benefits that has gone on over the same period of time. We are spending 
everything that comes out, or close to--actually it is about 60 percent 
of what we have had in increases in Social Security premiums right into 
Medicare premium increases that are being charged now.
  This is a problem. Given these dramatic price increases and the 
decline of family income, there is no wonder that families feel 
squeezed. They have to. We are moving in the wrong direction on way too 
many of these indicators, and I think it is time that we take a look at 
the policies that are leading to this.
  Under President Bush, moving on to another perspective, we have lost 
1.6 million private sector jobs. Mysteriously we have actually created 
a lot of jobs in the Government sector. That reduces that job loss down 
to about a million. We are growing the Government, but we are not 
growing our private sector. I thought it was supposed to be the other 
way around. It is unprecedented in modern times that we are actually 
losing jobs.
  Remember, the population is growing and productivity is going up. And 
we are losing jobs? We may have had a growth spurt of sorts--it has 
actually been pretty anemic by any historical standards because we need 
almost 200,000 jobs a month just to stay up with population growth. But 
the fact is, we have had the first administration since the 1930s--it 
is not that we have a Hoover-level economy, but it is the first 
President since Herbert Hoover that we have actually seen job losses in 
this economy.
  It is hard to believe. That is a pretty tough standard. Americans 
want to work. They want to build a better world for their kids and 
their grandkids. Creating jobs is how we do that, and that is not 
happening. It is certainly not happening with quality jobs.
  We have all heard when you lose a job and then you get a job, 
afterwards there is a big deterioration in the economic well-being 
associated with that job. On average it is $9,000 less. In those 
industries that are contracting versus where people are hired, going 
from $33,000 down to $24,000, that is not the way to drive a healthy 
economy, particularly one that is so consumer-driven. I believe people 
will spend a little less money if they were making $33,000 and now they 
are making $24,000. You can talk about it in terms of arithmetic or you 
can talk about it in terms of well-being of the family and ability to 
pay, this is a problem in terms of quality of jobs, numbers of jobs, 
and the ability of people to have real income.
  I believe it is reflective of the poor policies to truly stimulate 
job growth in this country. We are putting all our eggs in a very 
narrow segment of people who are already doing well, whether it is 
through tax cuts or the advantages we have in this society. This is not 
a complaint about people doing well. That is great. But we need to have 
the resources to invest in other things that will make a difference in 
people's lives. We need to have tax breaks that get our American 
companies to produce jobs here at home, not outsource them. We need to 
have the resources to help corporate America and small business do 
something about health care. We need to share that burden so they are 
not cutting jobs because the cost of benefits is too high. We need to 
do something about that

[[Page 18032]]

now, and we need the resources to do it without blowing up the budget 
deficit way beyond where it is when we have an entitlement problem just 
around the corner on Social Security and other elements.
  We talked earlier about 19 percent fewer people have health care now. 
The reason is, it is so costly. A lot of individuals just avoid it 
because they can't stick with those costs. Companies are cutting their 
health care benefits because it has turned into the biggest expense 
they have, certainly the biggest growing expense. We need some policies 
that actually address that and are making an effort on that. We have 
not heard anything on that in the last 4 years.
  There is a real plan on the table, talking about catastrophic health 
insurance, making sure every child is insured, making sure we have tax 
credits for small business and offering Federal employees health 
benefits to small business so we have bigger pools. There are a lot of 
things to do. We are not doing it, and it is undermining the basic 
health and well-being of our economic society. And that is outside the 
context of realizing that 5 million people are without health 
insurance.
  There is a lot to be done here. There has been a lot lost. All of 
this is in the context of where we have gone from budget surpluses--a 
couple of hundred billion on an annual basis--to what was announced 
this week of a $422 billion deficit, the largest ever, and there is not 
much of a prospect we are going to get that under control in the next 
few years. This is from the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office. I 
think we are talking about $2.3 trillion over the next couple of years, 
with a whole bunch of things missing. It is a difficult, severe 
economic circumstance that I believe our current set of policies 
allowed to be.
  It is time for a change. I think our colleague Senator Kerry has 
great plans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. CORZINE. I ask for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORZINE. There is so much to do--on health care, job creation, 
and job training. We need the resources to be able to do it. We need to 
have sound policies to be able to underwrite rational Medicare policy, 
health care policy. We have put ourselves into a position where we have 
no money to invest in that, not in a serious way.
  There is a lot of work to do. The American people understand there is 
a difference between the economic success we have had because we had 
the discipline and the foresight to do the things that make a 
difference, to create those 22 million jobs, to create real income 
growth, and what we have had in the last 3\1/2\ years, which has done 
just the opposite and particularly has been heavyhanded and harsh on 
middle-class America. I hope when we get to elections we will make the 
economic choices that will relieve that economic squeeze and make a 
difference in people's lives because it is truly important if we are 
going to have a longrun, sustained economic well-being for the Nation 
in the years and decades ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending business, and I call up amendment No. 3617, which is 
currently at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
pending amendment is laid aside.


                           Amendment No. 3617

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise to address an amendment that 
will ensure the Coast Guard will have adequate funding to complete its 
homeland security missions without sacrificing its traditional duties. 
In this appropriations bill, the one that is before us, the Senate 
would provide $5.15 billion in operating expenses for the Coast Guard. 
That is $250 million less than the amount authorized and $20 million 
less than the President's request.
  This amount is supposed to cover operations for all Coast Guard 
missions, both nonsecurity and security related. But the General 
Accountability Office has found that in times of elevated security 
levels, the Coast Guard has had to delve into the budget for 
traditional missions that are currently performed by the Coast Guard. 
This amendment will cover the shortfall by adding $100 million for work 
on nonhomeland-security-related missions.
  We have even appropriated money for the Iraqi Coastal Defense Force. 
With $260 million in the emergency supplemental last year for border 
enforcement in Iraq, we have gone out and purchased Chinese-built 
patrol boats shipped by a German company to Iraq, where we are training 
their crews to perform antismuggling operations, harbor and coastline 
defense, search and rescue operations, and various other operations in 
Iraq. If we can find money for the Iraqi Coastal Defense Force, surely 
we can fully fund our own Coast Guard.
  One month ago we enacted the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation 
Act of 2004 which reauthorizes the Coast Guard for fiscal years 2005 
and 2006. Due to the leadership of Chairman McCain, Ranking Member 
Hollings, as well as subcommittee leaders, Chairman Snowe and Ranking 
Member John Kerry, this important legislation was enacted. This law 
authorizes some very important work and gives even more responsibility 
to the Coast Guard, which the occupant of the chair knows, coming from 
a coastal State like North Carolina. The Coast Guard is always being 
given more work, more demands, performing with less resources, fewer 
people, and still doing an outstanding job. But there is a point at 
which they just can't do that anymore. The work they do, we forget, 
includes work on oil pollution, marine safety, improved fisheries 
enforcement, and work finding alternatives to double-hull vessel 
designs. This authorizes adequate funding. This authorization provided 
for the additional $100 million in my amendment to ensure that the 
budgets for traditional missions are not raided. The President signed 
this act into law 1 month and 1 day ago, so there is an established 
need for this amendment.
  I want to be clear. My amendment does not add back the entire $251 
million that was authorized but was left out here. Rather, it 
recaptures only $100 million out of that. The amendment would not 
affect the homeland security budget of the Coast Guard.
  Last year my staff heard from a New Jersey constituent who is in the 
Coast Guard. We have Coast Guard training facilities in the State of 
New Jersey.
  He told my staff that due to budget cuts, his unit was forced to 
share personal equipment like specialized suits and other gear intended 
to be worn by one individual.
  He said that this made it difficult to do his job, but he and his 
colleagues were making do.
  Nonetheless, I find this disturbing.
  Because of inadequate budgeting, even the Coast Guard Commandant, 
Admiral Collins, has been forced to do what I like to call the ``OMB 
Dance.''
  This is the ``Dance'' where agency heads come before Congress and 
squirm while they tell us that they can ``made do'' with a clearly 
inadequate budget.
  They don't volunteer details about how these funding shortfalls 
threaten their ability to carry out their missions effectively.
  Some of the traditional missions of the Coast Guard include search-
and-rescue, marine safety, drug interdiction, aids to navigation, ice 
breaking operations, living marine resources, migrant interdiction, 
marine environmental protection, and other law enforcement activities.
  In their report, the GAO discovered that ``resource hours'' for many 
of traditional functions are still well below pre-9/11 levels. For 
instance, search-and-rescue is down 22 percent. Foreign fishing 
enforcement is down 16 percent, permitting further abuse of the 
available supply of fish life. And interdiction of illegal drugs is 
down 44 percent.
  When we send Coast Guard cutters to the Middle East, it affects us at 
home.
  The administration will tell you, and I am sure you will hear during 
debate, that based on ``performance factors,'' these areas have not 
been hurt--that they are doing their job more efficiently now, with 
better intelligence.

[[Page 18033]]

Once again, you can only squeeze so far.
  But how do you measure how many drug shipments were not seized?
  How do you measure how many illegal aliens where not intercepted?
  Or how many foreign fishing vessels violated international treaties 
and fished in U.S. waters without getting caught?
  Under this bill, some of these functions are now considered 
``defense-related,'' but not all of them.
  We must provide adequate resources for the Coast Guard to complete 
all of their missions.
  If we continue to treat their non-homeland budget as a security slush 
fund, we will end up paying for it in other ways.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  We have an understanding that there will be a vote on this amendment 
on Monday afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend from Florida who has 
urgent business. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized after he 
concludes his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Intelligence Reform

  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and good 
friend, Senator Kennedy, for his courtesy in allowing me to make these 
remarks at this time.
  Mr. President, this is a propitious moment.
  At exactly 8:46 tomorrow--Saturday--morning, we will observe the 
third anniversary of the crash of American Airlines Flight 11 into the 
North Tower of the World Trade Center.
  That moment changed our Nation and our world forever--and in the 
hours and days that followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 
2001, we in public office undertook an important obligation.
  We vowed, in the memory of the nearly 3,000 innocent people who died 
that day, to take action to prevent attacks of that magnitude from ever 
happening again within our homeland.
  In his speech delivered before a joint session of Congress on 
September 20, 2001, President Bush put it this way:

       Americans are asking, How will we fight and win this war?
       We will direct every resource at our command--every means 
     of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of 
     law enforcement, every financial influence, and every 
     necessary weapon of war--to the disruption and to the defeat 
     of the global terror network.

  Unfortunately, one day before the third anniversary of 9/11, we have 
not met that commitment.
  We have failed to adequately focus on what it will take to fight this 
new threat, one that calls for new thinking and new governmental 
infrastructure.
  The No. 1 requirement for meaningful reform is strong and consistent 
Presidential leadership.
  We have seen leadership lacking at several crucial turning points in 
recent history, both before September 11, 2001 and since.
  I have believed for many months--since well before the final report 
of the independent 9/11 Commission was released in July--that the 
problems in our intelligence community are not a mystery, they are 
known weaknesses that simply have yet to be fixed.
  I commend the 9/11 Commission for its fine work, especially chairman 
and former Governor of New Jersey Tom Kean and vice chairman and former 
Congressman from Indiana Lee Hamilton.
  And I am optimistic that their report has shaken our nation's leaders 
out of their lethargy and caused them to focus on the need for reform 
of our intelligence gathering and analysis.
  But the record is clear. The 9/11 Commission's work built on a series 
of commissions and studies that offered recommendations for reform of 
the intelligence community going back nearly a decade.
  But those recommendations were--tragically--all but ignored.
  Just to mention the reports that were before the Congress and before 
the President, I would date these efforts to 1995, when Congress 
created the Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the United 
States Intelligence Community, also known as the Aspin-Brown 
Commission.
  Its final report was issued on March 1, 1996.
  Since then, there have been the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic 
Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass 
Destruction, also known as the Gilmore Committee, which issued the 
first of its five reports in December 1999, the National Commission on 
Terrorism, also known as the Bremer Commission, which issued its report 
in June 2000, and the National Commission on National Security in the 
21st century, also known as the Hart-Rudman Commission, which issued 
its final report in January of 2001.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the membership 
of each of these commissions, which demonstrates the quality of the 
individuals who studied these problems and made recommendations.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Members of independent commissions that have reviewed the 
     Intelligence Community:
       Hart-Rudman Commission (2001): Gary Hart (co-chair), Warren 
     Bruce Rudman (co-chair), Anne Armstrong, Norm R. Augustine, 
     John Dancy, John R. Galvin, Leslie H. Gelb, Newt Gingrich, 
     Lee H. Hamilton, Lionel H. Olmer, Donald B. Rice, James R. 
     Schlesinger, Harry D. Train, Andrew Jackson Young, Jr.
       Bremer Commission (2000): L. Paul Bremer (chairman), 
     Maurice Sonnenberg (vice chairman), Richard K. Betts, Wayne 
     A. Downing, Jane Harman, Fred C. Ikle, Juliette N. Kayyem, 
     John F. Lewish, Jr., Gardner Peckham, R. James Woolsey.
       Gilmore Commission (1999): James S. Gilmore, George 
     Foresman, L. Paul Bremer, Michael Freeman, William Garrison, 
     Ellen M. Gordon, James Greenleaf, William Jenaway, William 
     Dallas Jones, Paul M. Maniscalco, John O. Marsh, Kathleen 
     O'Brien, M. Patricia Quinlisk, Patrick Ralston, William Reno, 
     Kenneth Shine, Alan D. Vickery, Hubert Williams. Non-voting 
     participants: John Hathaway, John Lombardi, Michael A. 
     Wermuth, Jennifer Brower.
       Aspin-Brown Commission (1996): Appointed by Pres. Clinton: 
     Les Aspin, Warren B. Rudman, Lew Allen, Zoe Baird, Ann 
     Caracristi, Stephen Friedman, Anthony S. Harrington, Robert 
     J. Hermann, Paul D. Wolfowitz. Appointed by Congress: Hon. 
     Tony Coelho, David H. Dewhurst, Rep. Norman D. Dicks, Sen. J. 
     James Exon, Hon. Wyche Fowler, Rep. Porter Goss, Lt. Gen. 
     Robert E. Pursley, Sen. John Warner.

  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, finally, there is the report of 
our own House-Senate Joint Inquiry into the intelligence failures that 
surrounded 9/11, which I had the honor of co-chairing with 
Representative Porter Goss.
  The Joint Inquiry file our report with its 19 recommendations in 
December 2002.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of 
the members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees in the 
107th Congress who served on the Joint Inquiry.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 107th Congress 
                               Membership

     Porter J. Goss, R--Florida, Chairman
     Nancy Pelosi, D--California, Ranking Democrat


                              Republicans

     Doug Bereuter, Nebraska
     Michael N. Castle, Delaware
     Sherwood L. Boehlert, New York
     Jim Gibbons, Nevada
     Ray LaHood, Illinois
     Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, California
     Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
     Richard Burr, North Carolina
     Saxby Chambliss, Georgia
     Terry Everett, Alabama


                               Democrats

     Sanford D. Bishop, Georgia
     Jane Harman, California
     Gary A. Condit, California
     Tim Roemer, Indiana
     Silvestre Reyes, Texas
     Leonard L. Boswell, Iowa
     Collin C. Peterson, Minnesota
     Bud Cramer, Alabama

     Timothy R. Sample, Staff Director
     Michael W. Sheehy, Democratic Counsel


[[Page 18034]]

  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. The declassified version was released to the 
public on July 24, 2003.
  I filed legislation, S. 1520, September 11, the Memorial Intelligence 
Reform Act, to implement those recommendations 1 week later on July 31, 
2003. Each of these panels, in common, concluded major changes were 
needed to better protect the American people, including such steps as 
much longer human intelligence capabilities. Yet we did not see the 
leadership that was needed to fully implement any of those 
recommendations. Rather, when it comes to reforming our intelligence 
community, our Nation's leaders can be described as lethargic, at best, 
negligent, at worst.
  Let me be clear, my condemnation is not directed only at the current 
administration but previous administrations, as well. For instance, in 
my judgment, the Clinton administration was guilty of two principal 
failures. One, it did not seriously consider or initiate the changes 
necessary to move our intelligence agencies into the 21st century; 
second, it did not take adequate steps to wipe out the al-Qaida 
training camps in Afghanistan, camps which produced thousands of 
extremists trained in the effective skills of terrorism.
  The blame is not totally at the White House. This Congress deserves 
blame for its failure to move with a greater sense of urgency. I will 
discuss those failures in a future date.
  Now we have the 9/11 Commission report. We are likely to see passage 
of an intelligence reform package before the election. I am convinced 
the American people will recognize that valuable time has been lost in 
the 3 years since September 11, 2001, and should we suffer another 
terrorist strike on our land before these reforms are fully 
implemented, we will not be able to dodge tough questions about why we 
failed to respond sooner.
  It is abundantly clear that had we heeded the lessons to be learned 
from September 11, we might have avoided the embarrassing failures of 
intelligence on weapons of mass destruction that led us into the war in 
Iraq. President Bush should have exercised his full powers as Commander 
in Chief in the hours immediately after September 11 by calling 
together the leadership of the agencies whose failures contributed to 
that tragedy. The President should, in the bluntest of terms, have 
demanded a full review and a report and steps to correct these 
deficiencies to be submitted to the Oval Office within no longer than 
100 days.
  The No. 1 lesson of September 11 is obvious: Our intelligence on the 
terrorist threat was unreliable. It was subject to major gaps of 
necessary information and analysis. Had we applied exactly those same 
lessons learned as we prepared for the war in Iraq, the President would 
have had less confidence in the intelligence he was being given on 
issues such as weapons of mass destruction and the conditions that our 
military men and women would face during and after the initial assault.
  Ponder this: What a difference that would have made as we learn from 
the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the problems of pre-Iraqi 
war intelligence. If we do not now take action to remedy those 
weaknesses, we will not be able to avoid accountability for our failure 
to detect and deter the next attack.
  As has been demonstrated over the past decade, the fundamental 
opponent of intelligence reform is inertia and the natural tendency to 
maintain the status quo. Before we can get people to reject the status 
quo, there has to be, first, an agreement as to what are the problems 
to which the status quo has contributed.
  I have found that the medical model of first diagnosing a problem and 
then prescribing a remedy to be a useful prescription with social 
problems. Today, I want to give the diagnosis of our intelligence 
community that a careful physician might offer. Next week, I will come 
to the Senate to offer my prescription.
  This is what I consider to be five major problems and challenges 
facing American intelligence. One, the failure to adapt to a changing 
adversary and a changing global threat environment. Just as it was 
difficult 40 years earlier for the intelligence community to make the 
transition from the practices of the OSS against Germany and Japan, 
today's intelligence community has found it even more difficult to 
shift from the cold war to the war on terror.
  Our new enemy is distinctly different than we are. It is a non-nation 
state, asymmetrical in the extreme. It is motivated by a religious 
belief that denies the legitimacy of governments which intrude on the 
direct relationship which should exist between all law and man. We are 
almost deaf to the numerous, frequently arcane languages that our new 
adversaries speak. As a people and as a nation, the United States has 
limited expertise in their cultures. By the failure to make the 
transition to this new world we inhabit and the new threats we face, 
American intelligence is rendering itself less and less capable of 
bringing the security which our citizens need and deserve.
  A second failure is the repeated instances in which the intelligence 
community did not provide effective, strategic intelligence. In the 
summer of 2001, intelligence was reporting to American decisionmakers 
that, yes, al-Qaida was something of a threat to U.S. interests, but 
outside the country, not inside the homeland of the United States. So 
while we spent hundreds of millions of dollars to fortify our embassies 
abroad, we did virtually nothing to increase the safety of domestic 
commercial aviation.
  As the planning for the war was intensifying in the winter and spring 
of 2003, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense 
Wolfowitz reached two conclusions which were validated by intelligence, 
much of which came from the intelligence agencies within the Department 
of Defense. They claimed that after the war the U.S. troops would be 
received as liberators and that the Iraqi people would shower our 
troops with flowers, as the American soldiers had been welcomed in 
Paris in 1944. They went on to say that the Iraqis would turn on the 
faucets of that nation's oil riches and pay for the occupation and 
rebuilding of their nation. Sadly, of course, neither of these 
projections has come true.
  The third failure is the failure to establish within the intelligence 
community broad priorities and then to deploy the resources of the 
intelligence community behind those priorities. In December of 1998, 
former CIA Director George Tenet declared terrorism was the 
intelligence community's primary target, that America was at war with 
al-Qaida.
  The problem is that within the CIA and the other intelligence 
agencies few heard the battle cry and even fewer responded.
  Rather than set up intelligence systems to validate convenient 
political notions, we need a system that pursues mutually agreed-upon 
priorities
  Fourth, the intelligence community has not implemented the policies 
necessary to recruit, train, reward or sanction, maintain the talents 
or diversify its human intelligence capabilities.
  The U.S. human intelligence at the end of the cold war has been 
described as very deep in our knowledge of the Soviet target, almost 
ignorant about everything else.
  In the places where we most need human intelligence, such as in the 
Middle East and Central Asia, we are woefully deficient.
  The intelligence community's current recruitment and training 
regimes, which rely heavily on college campus career days, has been 
inadequate to overcome this handicap.
  We are confronting terrorists with a band of men and women who are 
enthusiastic to perform the challenging intellectual work of an analyst 
or the dangerous undertaking of an operative, but often lack the 
necessary skills to be effective.
  In my opinion, we need to rethink our system of intelligence 
recruitment, training, and performance evaluation.
  The fifth failure is the failure to realize that many of the most 
important decisions made by the intelligence community that were 
previously described as tactical have now become strategic.

[[Page 18035]]

  Unfortunately, the level and perspective of those tasking the 
gathering of that intelligence has not changed, often with highly 
adverse consequences.
  One of the reasons that congressional oversight of the intelligence 
community exists is because in 1960, in the days before a planned 
summit between President Eisenhower and Soviet leader Nikita 
Krushvchev, the Soviet Union downed an American U-2 spy plane.
  The tension surrounding the plane's mission and its downing aborted 
the summit, and that enraged Senator Mike Mansfield. This is what 
Senator Mansfield said:

       Not a single member of the Cabinet nor the President 
     exercised any direct control whatsoever over the ill-fated U-
     2 flight at the critical moment at which it was launched.

  He continued that the decision to undertake the flight:

     owes its origin more to bureaucratic inertia, lack of 
     coordination and control and insensitivity to its potential 
     cost than it does to any conscious decision of politically 
     responsible leadership.

  In other words, a tactical blunder had set back a strategic goal.
  Today, even more than in 1960, tactical intelligence gathering 
operations need to show an appreciation--a greater appreciation than is 
true today--for their strategic implications.
  Mr. President, it has been 3 years since we suffered the horror of 
September 11. The time to act is long since past.
  In future days, I will discuss recommendations to address what I 
think are the major challenges we face, and to urge the courage and 
commitment, will and urgency, to protect the American people in the way 
that we failed to do on September 11, 2001.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.


                            FAILURES IN IRAQ

  Mr. KENNEDY. Yesterday, the Senate Armed Services Committee held two 
hearings to consider the reports by General Fay and General Jones and 
the report by former Defense Secretary Schlesinger about the Abu Ghraib 
prison debacle.
  The abuses at Abu Ghraib are just one part of a much larger failure, 
for which our soldiers have been paying a high price since day one. 
Because of the Bush administration's arrogant ideological incompetence 
and its bizarre ``mission accomplished'' mentality, our troops and our 
intelligence officers and our diplomats had neither the resources nor 
the guidance needed to deal with the worsening conditions that steadily 
began to overwhelm them and continue to do so.
  On issue after issue in Iraq, the administration has failed the basic 
test of competence.
  Before the war, the administration mishandled the intelligence, 
causing great damage to U.S. respect in the world, making the war on 
terrorism far harder to win. It is preposterous for the administration 
to pretend that the war in Iraq has made America safer. No President in 
America's history has done more damage to our country and our security 
than President Bush.
  The American people know where the buck stops.
  The administration bungled prewar diplomacy on Iraq, leaving us 
isolated and unable to obtain real allied support.
  The administration failed to consider the possibility that the 
liberation of Iraq might not be the cakewalk they predicted. They 
failed to consider the possibility that their preoccupation with Iraq 
could undo much of our achievement in Afghanistan and give the al-Qaida 
terrorists time to regroup and plan murderous new assaults.
  Far too many of our soldiers were not adequately trained for their 
mission in Iraq and they did not have adequate equipment for their 
missions either.
  The administration failed to send enough troops to do the job of 
keeping the peace. They disbanded the Iraqi army, and they are 
struggling now to recreate it.
  The administration's failures have also put a huge strain on the Army 
and our Reserve Forces and imposed great hardships on the families of 
our soldiers.
  The number of insurgents in Iraq has gone up. The number of brutal 
attacks has gone up, and so have the casualties.
  When President Bush recklessly declared ``mission accomplished,'' the 
civilian leaders in the Department of Defense took him seriously and 
left our Armed Forces in Iraq underprepared, understaffed, and underled 
for the mission that was only just beginning.
  President Bush has stated that the war in Iraq was a catastrophic 
success. He is half right--the war has been a catastrophe.
  The war has been a catastrophe for our soldiers, who were foolishly 
sent to war with no plan--no plan--to win the peace.
  The war has been a catastrophe for their loved ones.
  The war has been a catastrophe for our Nation's standing in the world 
and for the war on terror. As I have said, it has distracted us from 
the real threat of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and elsewhere, made the war 
against terrorism far harder to win, and made America more hated in the 
world than at any other time in our history.
  Nothing I have said detracts from the extraordinary heroism of our 
soldiers. They have responded to their mission in Iraq with immense 
courage and dedication. But their outstanding service does not and 
cannot excuse the incompetence of their civilian leaders.
  That incompetence was on vivid display again yesterday, in the Armed 
Services Committee, where we heard testimony on the report by General 
Jones and General Fay about Iraq. Their findings were chilling.
  Their report states point blank that the Pentagon expected our 
troops, under General Sanchez, to provide stability and support for the 
Coalition Provisional Authority ``in a relatively nonhostile 
environment'' in Iraq. Those are the exact words of the report--``a 
relatively nonhostile environment.''
  That description is no surprise. The administration had been doing 
its best to convince the American people that the war would be easy.
  In February 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld told troops that the war ``could 
last, you know, 6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months.'' As Secretary 
Rumsfeld well knows, it has now been three times as long as that, with 
no end in sight.
  In March 2003, Vice President Cheney said we would ``be greeted as 
liberators'' and dismissed out of hand any suggestion that we would be 
viewed as conquerors in a long, bloody occupation.
  Before the war, the Pentagon flagrantly ignored the postwar planning 
carried out by the State Department in its ``Future of Iraq'' project. 
The civilian leaders at the Defense Department were dismissive of any 
opposing view. They were convinced that the war would be easy, cheap, 
and fast.
  They ridiculed General Shinseki, then Chief of Staff of the Army, and 
Larry Lindsey, formerly President Bush's top economic advisor, who said 
that a successful war in Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of 
soldiers, and hundreds of billions of dollars.
  They put their own ideology above practical military planning, and we 
continue to see the catastrophic results today.
  Simply put, the civilians at the Pentagon did not anticipate or 
prepare for the insurgent fighting that occurred, despite the prewar 
warnings from military leaders.
  Even after the shameful failure at Abu Ghraib came to light, the 
administration continued to pour out statements that were completely at 
odds with the facts.
  On May 7 this year, Secretary Rumsfeld testified before the Armed 
Services Committees of both Houses of Congress. He told Senators that 
``a small number of the U.S. military'' had perpetuated the abuses. He 
told the House that ``a few members of the U.S. military were 
responsible.'' A week later, President Bush tried to minimize the 
scandal by saying it involved ``disgraceful conduct by a few American 
troops.''
  But as we now know, it wasn't just a few bad apples at Abu Ghraib.
  The Fay Report found 54 military intelligence, military police, 
medics, and

[[Page 18036]]

civilian contractors who had ``some degree of responsibility or 
complicity in the abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib. Leaders in key 
positions failed to properly supervise the interrogation operations at 
the prison.''
  The Fay Report identified not just individual failures but systemic 
failures, including: ``inadequate interrogation doctrine and training, 
an acute shortage of MP and MI soldiers, the lack of clear lines of 
responsibility between the MP and MI chains of command, the lack of 
clear interrogation policy for the Iraq Campaign.''
  The Schlesinger Report found that military leaders in and out of Iraq 
and civilian leaders in the Department of Defense ``failed in their 
duties and that such failures contributed directly or indirectly to 
detainee abuse.'' The report faults the Secretary of Defense and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for failing to ``set in motion 
the development of a more effective alternative course of action.'' 
Plainly, senior leaders did not do what was necessary to prevent these 
abuses.
  Secretary Rumsfeld told the Armed Services committee that the abuses 
were brought to light by Specialist Joseph Darby in January 2004, and 
the military chain of command ``acted promptly on learning of those 
abuses.''
  This claim, too, is false. Senior leaders had ample warning that 
these abuses were occurring long before January 2004.
  General Jones' report found that indications and warnings had 
surfaced at General Sanchez's level ``that additional oversight and 
corrective actions were needed in the handling of detainees,'' 
including at Abu Ghraib.
  The report pointed to many specific warnings from within the Army 
about clear problems that were ignored by the Pentagon's civilian 
leadership. It cited an incident in which a detainee was abused at Camp 
Cropper after a prison riot. It cited investigations by the Army's 
Criminal Investigative Division into incidents of abuse and 
disciplining soldiers. It cited the death of a CIA detainee at Abu 
Ghraib. It cited the totally inadequate filing system for tracking 
detainees, which consisted of a hodge-podge of computers and filing 
boxes.
  The civilian leaders at the Pentagon also had ample warnings from 
outside the Army, which they also ignored. The International Committee 
of the Red Cross reported on abuses in the prisons as early as May 
2003, soon after the fall of Baghdad. During a visit to Abu Ghraib 5 
months later, in October 2003, Red Cross inspectors were so upset by 
what they found that they halted their visit and demanded an immediate 
explanation from U.S. military authorities. Yet the worst abuses at the 
prison occurred over the next 3 months, from October to December of 
that year.
  Clearly, Secretary Rumsfeld misled the Congress and the American 
people when he said that the leadership had acted swiftly to address 
the abuses, when in fact, they allowed abuses to continue and allowed 
the situation to fester. They acted only when the public disclosure of 
the abuses in the press made it impossible for their cover-up to 
continue.
  The administration then attempted to minimize the abuses at Abu 
Ghraib as part of its overall strategy to bury any bad new from Iraq 
and hide its incompetence, or worse, from the American people. But as 
these reports show, the catastrophe is far too great to be wished away 
with political spin.
  The Jones-Fay report states very clearly that ``the military police 
and military intelligence units at Abu Ghraib were severely 
underresourced.''
  The report says that a failure to distinguish between Iraq and other 
theaters of operation led to ``confusion'' about which particular 
interrogation techniques were authorized in Iraq.
  It says, ``The intelligence structure was under-manned, 
underequipped, and inappropriately organized for counter-insurgency 
operations.''
  What the report is saying, put in plain language, is that the 
operation was botched--totally botched.
  We know from General Taguba's report that few, if any, of the 
military police assigned to Abu Ghraib were trained on how to run a 
prison, or even on the basic requirements of the Geneva Conventions.
  Yesterday, the generals told us that additional missions had 
overwhelmed General Sanchez's headquarters, leaving them unable to 
manage the growing crises at Abu Ghraib and unable to respond to the 
many warning signs from the Red Cross.
  We heard over and over again about the impossible strains imposed on 
General Sanchez and his headquarters, because he was suddenly forced to 
take on two huge missions in Iraq--supporting the Coalition Provisional 
Authority and beginning the reconstruction--in addition to fighting a 
growing insurgency.
  The Jones-Fay report says that General Sanchez was missing two-thirds 
of the personnel needed for his own command in Iraq. It says ``of the 
1,400 personnel required, the [Fifth] Corps staff transitioned to only 
495, or roughly a third, of the manning requirements.'' This was barely 
enough to fight the war, and far too few to rebuild a country or 
supervise the detention system.
  The obvious basic questions are who put our military forces in this 
untenable position? Who decided that the war would be short, cheap, and 
easy? Who decided that the war was over and that we needed to start 
rebuilding Iraq? Who decided to play ``Mission Accomplished?''
  The problems at Abu Ghraib are just symptoms of these larger 
failures. We sent our troops into battle without enough life-saving 
body armor and armor for their humvees on patrol. Those shortages were 
allowed to last for over a year, while our casualties continued to 
mount.
  We had far too few troops in place to prevent the looting of Baghdad 
and many other parts of the country.
  Huge ammunition depots went unguarded, and insurgents kept getting 
materials and bombs to use against our troops.
  We disbanded the Iraqi military, at one time the fourth largest 
military in the world, only to begin training a new one from scratch 
when the blunder was finally admitted.
  In his report, General Jones gave us a definition of a leadership 
failure: where ``leaders did not take charge, failed to provide 
appropriate guidance'', ``failed to accept responsibility or apply good 
judgment''. By this standard, and on this record, President Bush and 
his administration are clearly guilty of leadership failure.
  Despite these colossal failures of leadership and this gross 
incompetence, no one has been held accountable.
  The military holds its soldiers accountable for leadership failures. 
A few weeks ago, the Navy fired the captain of the USS John F. Kennedy 
aircraft carrier for running over a small boat in the Persian Gulf. The 
Navy didn't hide incompetence and gloss it over. It responded 
decisively and plainly stated that it had ``lost confidence'' in the 
captain's ability to operate the carrier safely. He was the eleventh 
commanding officer of the Navy to be fired this year alone. The Navy 
fired 14 commanding officers in 2003.
  In February 2004, the Commanding Officer of the frigate USS Samuel B 
Roberts was fired for a ``loss of confidence,'' after he spent a night 
off the ship during a port visit to Ecuador.
  In October 2003, the Commanding Officer of an EA-6B Prowler Aircraft 
Squadron lost his job after one of his jets skidded off a runway. The 
Navy cited a ``loss of confidence'' when they made the decision to 
dismiss him.
  In December 2003 and January 2004, Commanding Officers of the 
submarine, Jimmy Carter and the frigate USS Gary were fired, both for 
``loss of confidence.''
  For military officers in the Navy, the message is clear--if you fail, 
you're fired. The message to the civilian leadership in this 
administration is equally clear--if you fail there will be no 
consequences and no accountability, even if 1,000 American lives are 
lost.
  It is time for the Department of Defense run a tighter ship at all 
levels of command, including the civilian leadership. The civilian 
leaders at the Pentagon should be held at least to the same standard of 
accountability that military officers in the Navy are held to.

[[Page 18037]]

  Obviously, it is different to place overall blame on our military 
leaders when their only fault may well be that they couldn't talk their 
arrogant civilian leaders out of a flawed plan for Iraq.
  But someone must be held accountable for the massive failures in 
Iraq. The buck has to stop somewhere!
  Civilian control of the military is one of the great cornerstones of 
our democracy. But what if the civilian leaders don't know what they're 
doing, and mindlessly order our troops into battle unprepared?
  Alfred Lord Tennyson said it well in those lines in his famous poem, 
``Charge of the Light Brigade'':

     Not tho' the soldiers knew
     Someone had blundered.
     Theirs not to make reply,
     Theirs not to reason why,
     Theirs but to do and die.

  This is what the administration has done to our troops in Iraq, and 
if Tennyson were writing today, he might well call his poem, ``The 
Charge of the Bush Brigade.''
  Clearly, there must be accountability for this breathtaking 
incompetence, which has resulted in the death of over a thousand 
American soldiers so far, put more in daily danger, and weakened 
America's national security.
  Yesterday, at the Armed Services Committee, former Defense Secretary 
Harold Brown described the key to accountability:

       At each level, the question is loss of confidence. And in 
     the Navy, the loss of confidence goes with grounding your 
     ship. At a higher level the loss of confidence has to be 
     determined on a basis that's somewhat broader, the full 
     performance. And I think that applies at the highest military 
     levels. And it applies at the level of the Secretary of 
     Defense and his staff. . . . And the electorate has to decide 
     on the basis of its confidence at election time.

  This administration has had its chance--and it failed the basic test 
of competence. If failed to deploy adequate forces in Iraq to win the 
peace. It failed at Abu Ghraib. It failed in granting sweetheart deals 
to Halliburton. It has failed the loss of confidence test, the basic 
test of Presidential leadership.
  The President seeks re-election based on his ability to fight the war 
on terror.
  The administration has lost confidence of the so-called ``coalition 
of the willing.'' Country after country is withdrawing troops, leaving 
America responsible for 90 percent of all the troops on the ground and 
90 percent of all casualties.
  On November 2d, the American people will decide, whether a majority 
of the country have lost confidence in the President's leadership 
because of his failures in Iraq and his failures on a wide range of 
immense important domestic issues as well. There can only be one 
answer--America needs new leadership. As I have said before, the only 
thing America has to fear is 4 more years of George Bush.
  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. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________