[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18093-18105]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time having 
arrived, 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 the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2005, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Nelson (FL) 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.
       Reid (for Lautenberg) Amendment No. 3617, to ensure that 
     the Coast guard has sufficient resources for its traditional 
     core missions.
       Corzine Amendment No. 3619, to appropriate an additional 
     $100,000,000 to enhance the security of chemical plants.


                           Amendment No. 3624

       (Purpose: To increase the amount appropriated for 
     firefighter assistance grants.)

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
laid aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for herself, Mrs. 
     Boxer, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, 
     Mr. Levin, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Schumer, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3624.
       On page 39, after line 5, insert the following:
       Sec. 515. The amount appropriated by title III for the 
     Office of State and Local Government Coordination and 
     Preparedness under the heading ``firefighter assistance 
     grants'' is hereby increased to $900,000,000.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am going to speak about the compelling 
needs that our local fire departments have.
  All of us, over the weekend, went to events commemorating September 
11, 2001. We all spoke about how much we admired those men and women 
who stood up to defend the Nation, including those very brave first 
responders at the World Trade Center who dashed up over 75 floors in 
burning buildings to try to rescue people. They put themselves on the 
line, and many of them, as we know, perished on that horrible day.
  Here in the Washington, DC area, as we know, the Pentagon was hit. We 
in Maryland had 60 Marylanders die that day. We had some die at the 
World Trade Center, but the majority were at the Pentagon. Some died on 
the airplanes. We had people die on those airlines, including a flight 
attendant who gave her life and was one of the people who tried to deal 
with the situation. We had others who died on those planes, such as a 
family who was leaving on a sabbatical--a husband and wife who were 
academics, with their two children. Again, we had people die at the 
Pentagon, such as one young man from Baltimore who was a financial 
analyst over at the Pentagon. Of those from Maryland who died at the 
Pentagon, 24 came from one county, Prince George's County. They were 
primarily African-Americans who worked in this financial services area 
of the Pentagon. Imagine, 24 people, such as Odessa Morris who had just 
celebrated her 25th anniversary; or Max Bielke, who had been in the 
military and when he retired, he went back to work as a civilian 
employee because he loved it. He was the last man to leave Vietnam. He 
stamped all the papers at our embassy there. He was the last soldier 
out of Vietnam. So we mourn that day.
  At the same time, we were proud of the Maryland response. I was 
particularly proud of the Chevy Chase rescue team. This is a volunteer 
fire department in Montgomery County that dashed across the Potomac 
under the doctrine of mutual aid to provide firefighting assistance on 
that horrible day, joining with our local fire departments from 
Northern Virginia and Rescue One from Chevy Chase, and stayed on the 
scene in order to be able to quell the fires that continued to burn. 
They were part of a FEMA search and rescue unit and they provided help. 
They were the ones who brought in the dogs to look for survivors. They 
were there night and day for several days and weeks.
  I was very proud of the Chevy Chase fire fighters and of all our fire 
departments in Maryland who went up to the World Trade Center to dig in 
the wreckage to see if they could find any survivors. We know the story 
about what happened at the World Trade Center. Again, the Chevy Chase 
Fire Department is a volunteer fire department. They serve their 
community and country on their own time and their own dime. It cost the 
Chevy Chase Fire Department over $300,000 to be able to be on the job. 
They did it willingly, unstintingly. Yet at the same time, we know 
those local fire departments cannot continue to function when we go on

[[Page 18094]]

Orange Alert, and they continue on their own time and on their own 
dime.
  One of the great things we created was the Fire Grant Program. The 
Fire Grant Program was an invention before 9/11 of Senator Kit Bond and 
me as part of a FEMA reform package, along with Congressmen Hoyer and 
Weldon in the House. We did it in a bipartisan effort to make sure our 
fire departments--particularly our volunteer fire departments--had the 
right equipment they needed to protect the protector, and also the 
updated technology to be able to protect us.
  When we created that program as part of FEMA, well before September 
11, 2001, it was authorized at $300 million. At the same time, what we 
know is that when we did that--after 9/11, the need was so compelling, 
working, again, on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, we authorized a fire 
grant program at $900 million. What else do we know? We know there is 
compelling need. We know the fire administration, just in 2003, 
received almost 20,000 applications totaling $2.5 billion in funding 
requests for local fire departments.
  Imagine that. The fire administration received requests for $2.5 
billion. Yet because of funding at around the $700 million level, they 
could only fund 8,900 of those 20,000 requests. So we know the need is 
in the billions. We know we are authorized at the $900 million level.
  What my amendment will do, when I have the opportunity to offer it, 
is raise funding for fire grants to the authorized level of $900 
million. Why do we want to do that? We are facing new threats every 
day. Just over a month ago, when the administration raised the terror 
alert to Orange for the communities of Washington, New York, and New 
Jersey, we knew what the needs really were.
  The bill we are considering today actually has funding at $700 
million. I know on Friday an amendment offered by the Republican 
leader, the majority leader, Senator Frist, actually increased it by 
$50 million. I will be offering an amendment at an appropriate time to 
raise it $150 million so that we can bring it up to the authorized 
level of $900 million.
  What would this additional $150 million mean? It would mean 
protective gear for 150,000 firefighters. It means local fire 
departments could buy 500 new fire trucks. It means they could buy 300 
new rescue vehicles. But this is not about protective gear and fire 
trucks; it is about the tools our firefighters need.
  First of all, they need the equipment to protect themselves, such as 
breathing equipment and fire retardation gear. We need to protect the 
protectors so they can protect us. Then, at the same time, they need 
other technology. What we also know is that this program gives us 
double value. If our first responders have the right equipment, they 
are ready to respond against not only a terrorist attack, but anything 
else that may happen to a community.
  During those hurricanes that have been whipping Florida, we have had 
our first responders there, and they have the right equipment, as well 
as the radio equipment, to respond.
  It also means the kind of equipment that we need not only when the 
Chevy Chase Fire and Rescue Department dashes across the Potomac but 
what they need if something happens on the beltway.
  We in Baltimore had a terrible tanker explosion on I-95. Because our 
firefighters were prepared, they could deal with the hazmat situation. 
I could give a number of examples.
  This is not just Barbara Mikulski speaking. The Council on Foreign 
Relations, chaired by our former colleague, Senator Rudman--and we know 
the independence he has--issued an independent report last year. We 
also know he was the author of many balanced budget amendments. So we 
know he approaches it with Yankee common sense and the frugality for 
which he is very well known. So we have Senator Rudman, an independent 
personality, one who has always been frugal from a budget standpoint, 
and yet he is recommending more money.
  What did the report show? That the United States remains ill prepared 
for a catastrophic attack; that fire departments across the country 
have only enough radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift; 
breathing apparatus for just one-third of our firefighters; and that 
only 10 percent of fire departments have the equipment to respond to a 
building collapse. That is the Rudman report.
  Then Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Fire 
Protection Association also did a study called ``A Needs Assessment of 
the U.S. Fire Service.'' They found that 57,000 firefighters lacked the 
protective clothing they needed to protect themselves to protect us.
  In Maryland alone, it would take $52 million to replace protective 
gear for all of our firefighters. This is what we are talking about.
  We do not want to just throw money at problems. We believe the fire 
grant is a model program because we refuse to earmark the grants. They 
are subject to peer review, so they are given on the basis of priority 
and merit. We know what our shortcomings are, and these various reports 
document them.
  We talked about how last year there were 20,000 applicants and $2.5 
billion worth of requests. That speaks for itself. We have double value 
for this spending, not only for response to terrorist attacks but 
against all hazards, whether it is hurricanes, tornadoes, or the 
wildfires that hit the West. We need to be able to protect the local 
fire departments.
  Mr. President, you know how expensive this equipment can be. You 
cannot do this on bingos and fish fries. They need the U.S. Government 
to stand behind them to do that.
  There are over a million firefighters in the United States, of which 
there are 750,000 volunteers. Isn't that terrific? They really do save 
lives; they save homes; they save communities. We need to save them and 
to help them. They do not know what they are going to face when they 
enter a house to save a child trapped on the second floor. They may put 
out the flames in a factory that contains toxic chemicals. They are the 
first on the scene at any disaster. Firefighters are our protectors. 
Many are volunteers who work three shifts: one on a regular job, one 
with their families, and then another shift at the fire department. As 
I said, they cannot also then be expected to raise the money through 
charity, tip jars, and bingo. Of course they can do that because we 
always want local community support, but the equipment and gear they 
need is very expensive. A new fire engine costs $300,000. A new rescue 
vehicle costs $500,000. Self-contained breathing apparatus costs 
$6,000.
  Mr. President, you know how expensive it is. The Fire Grant Program 
is working. In my own community, the Forestville fire department, 
located in Prince George's County, was awarded funds for a new hydrant 
tanker. Why is that so important? The last one contained just a couple 
of hundred gallons, where this one is over 2,500. This is right next 
door to Andrews Air Force Base. Any attack on the United States would 
mean they would have to respond under doctrine of mutual aid.
  It is the same with the Kensington volunteer fire department in 
Montgomery County. We replaced a pumper truck that is dated to 1979. I 
could go all around the State of Maryland.
  The amendment speaks for itself. Senator Cochran still is not here. I 
am sure the Senator is tied up. We have worked together on many 
occasions.
  First, I really have enjoyed working with him on appropriations, on 
national security issues. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Homeland Security, it has been a delight to work with him.
  My amendment is very straightforward. What it does is raise the Fire 
Grant program to its fully authorized level of $900 million.
  As I have stated, the amendment speaks for itself. It increases the 
money to $900 million, the authorized level. We believe the amendment 
is warranted because, as I have said, the Fire Administration received 
requests totaling $2.5 billion, and since we cannot fund it at $2.5 
billion, I believe we need to take this important step and fund it at 
the $900 million level.
  The amendment speaks for itself. I now turn to the Democratic whip 
and

[[Page 18095]]

ask him how should we proceed? I would like to offer my amendment. I 
would like to get a vote on my amendment. Should I ask for the yeas and 
nays now?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, through the Chair to the distinguished 
Senator from Maryland, we have a number of votes we are going to try to 
get lined up for later this evening. It is my suggestion that the 
Senator ask for the yeas and nays, and then at a subsequent time, we 
will figure out when we are going to vote on it.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I say to the Presiding Officer, to 
Senator Cochran, and to the whip, I would like to work with them in a 
way that would create the orderly disposition of my amendment.
  I will withhold any rights to seek the yeas and nays. Is that an 
appropriate request?
  Mr. REID. That is appropriate
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, through the Chair to the Senator from 
Massachusetts, I am wondering if the Senator from Massachusetts would 
withhold his recognition, following a very brief statement by the 
Senator from Nebraska who wishes to offer an amendment and then speak. 
It should take just a few minutes.
  I ask unanimous consent that following the statement of the Senator 
from Nebraska, the Senator from Massachusetts regain the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 3625

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, the pending 
amendment is laid aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Nelson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3625.

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

(Purpose: To maintain the State Homeland Security Grant Program at the 
                    fiscal year 2004 funding level)

       On page 19, line 17, strike ``$2,845,081,000'' and all that 
     follows through line 22, and insert the following: 
     ``$3,605,081,000, which shall be allocated as follows:
       ``(1) $1,700,000,000 for formula-based grants, $400,000,000 
     for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants, and 
     $30,000,000 for Citizen Corps grants pursuant to section 1014 
     of the USA PATRIOT ACT (42 U.S.C. 3714): Provided, That''.

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank the minority assistant leader and my 
friend from Massachusetts for this courtesy to have this opportunity to 
speak for a few minutes about the first responder issue, as it relates 
to legislation before us today.
  Since September 11, States and communities of all sizes have made 
great strides in preparing for another possible terrorist attack. Based 
on the National Strategy for Homeland Security's principle of shared 
responsibility, Federal, State, and local governments, together with 
the private sector and the American people, have worked in partnership 
to ensure that our first responders are well equipped and well trained. 
States and local governments are responsible for preparing and 
implementing multi-year plans to ensure our Nation's first responders 
receive the equipment and training they require so that we are not only 
securing our homeland, but we are actually secure in each of our 
hometowns.
  The Senate's Homeland Security appropriations bill, S. 2537, slashes 
the primary first responder program by 45 percent, or $760 million. My 
amendment would restore this funding back to the fiscal year 2004 total 
of $1.7 billion. Called the State Homeland Security Grant Program, this 
is the primary source of coordinated funding for first responders. 
SHSGP, as it is referred to, allows States and local governments to 
build and maintain a base capacity by funding essential prevention, 
preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities within the State and 
across regional boundaries. Eligible uses include equipment, training, 
and exercises necessary to ensure our first responders are prepared and 
that both urban and rural critical infrastructure is protected, 
something I am sure the Presiding Officer is interested in, coming from 
the neighboring State of Wyoming.
  At least 80 percent of SHSGP is passed through to those who protect 
our hometowns: firefighters, police, EMTs, and other local emergency 
managers across the country. Nearly every State, even those that get 
additional money from the Urban Areas Security Initiative, UASI, will 
suffer a net loss in fiscal year 2004 under the Senate bill. Nearly 
half of all those States will see their efforts cut almost in half.
  Funding cuts of this magnitude will mean that private/public 
partnerships will have to be dismantled, and countless hours of 
planning, training, and exercise will have to be retooled. Regional 
alliances will fall dormant. Training classes and exercises will be 
cancelled, and equipment purchases will be put on hold. In short, 
hometown security will suffer immeasurably.
  The citizens of America expect that everything possible is being done 
to prevent another terrorist attack, and they expect that if another 
tragedy were to occur, the response and recovery will be immediate, 
well coordinated, and well trained. This vital work takes dedicated 
professionals executing well-rehearsed plans.
  I have watched the vote counts on other amendments to this bill, and 
unfortunately it is clear that this amendment will not pass. This is 
extremely disappointing. It is disappointing to me and should be to all 
rural areas. Because I realize this will fall short of the required 60 
votes, for the sake of time I will not force a vote on my amendment, 
but I do hope that as debate on funding for this important program 
proceeds, that everyone will come to the same conclusion I have: These 
funding cuts will undermine regional efforts and harm every State's 
ability to protect both its urban and rural critical infrastructure. 
Whether it is the protection of an urban shopping mall or the 
prevention of a rural bioterrorism incident that affects our food and 
water supply, critical infrastructures in every State must be 
protected.
  If our goal is to make sure our homeland and hometown security is as 
strong as the weakest link, we must ensure that every link is strong 
and that there is no weak link in our protection. That includes food 
and local areas, as well as urban and populated areas. All must be 
protected.
  I will make one further point on this subject. It is my understanding 
that an amendment may be offered that affects the funding formula for 
the State homeland security grant program. Currently, 38 percent of 
SHSGP funds are dispersed based upon a minimum funding formula, and the 
remaining 62 percent are dispersed to states based upon population. As 
I understand it, the amendment that may be offered would require the 
Department of Homeland Security to change the 62 percent portion of the 
funds from a population based formula into a high threat and population 
density formula.
  As someone who comes from a rural State, I plan to oppose this 
amendment and hope that my colleagues from smaller States and rural 
areas will do the same.
  The proposed funding formula would have the effect of shifting a lot 
of the current funding from the smaller states and sending it to our 
largest States that meet loosely defined criteria such as threat, 
vulnerability, and the presence of critical infrastructure.
  I wholeheartedly support funding for the first responder efforts in 
our major metropolitan areas, which is why I strongly support the 
current Urban Area Security Initiative program, which sends extra 
funding to these large areas. But I do not support paying for these 
programs by shifting funds away from our rural, less-populated states.
  Nebraska would lose $8 million under this proposed formula. I can't 
tell you how critical that is to a state like Nebraska and to all the 
communities in

[[Page 18096]]

Nebraska that are trying to follow through on the preparedness plans 
the Department of Homeland Security asked them to implement. And a 
shift in formula like this one would pull the rug out from under them.
  One needs to only look at the most recent terrorist attack in Russia 
and see that this attack was in a school in a rural area, and it is 
easy to understand that we must not be lulled into thinking that the 
rural areas are not going to be affected by any kind of terrorist 
activity.
  Our country is only as safe as our weakest vulnerability. The State 
Homeland Security Grant Program has already been cut by 45 percent in 
this bill. Shifting funds away from our less populated states will 
further exacerbate the problem. We need to make sure every part of the 
country is prepared, regardless of location.
  I thank my friend from Massachusetts for his courtesy, and I yield 
the floor.


                     Amendment No. 3625, Withdrawn

  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3626

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
that it be counted under the agreement toward one of Senator Murray's 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3626.

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

(Purpose: To require the President to provide to Congress a copy of the 
Scowcroft Commission report on improving the capabilities of the United 
                     States intelligence community)

       On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       Sec. 515. (a) Not later than 15 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall submit a copy of 
     the Scowcroft Commission report to Congress.
       (b) The report required under subsection (a) shall be 
     submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified 
     annex.
       (c) In this section, the term ``Scowcroft Commission 
     report'' means the report on improving the capabilities of 
     the United States intelligence community that was prepared by 
     the presidential commission appointed pursuant to National 
     Security Presidential Directive 5 (May 9, 2001) and chaired 
     by General Brent Scowcroft and that was submitted to the 
     President in or around December 2001.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I acknowledge and thank the leadership of 
the other side for their cooperation in working through this particular 
situation.
  This amendment will require the President to give Congress a copy of 
the December 2001 Scowcroft Commission report on intelligence reform. A 
classified annex could be provided is necessary, although some of those 
who have seen the report say that it contains very little that would be 
harmful to National security. What is harmful to our security is the 
continuing refusal by the Bush administration to make the report 
public.
  As my colleagues know, General Brent Scowcroft had a distinguished 
military career and served as the National Security Adviser to the 
first President Bush. Because of his broad experience with intelligence 
and his widely respected intellect and insights, the current President 
Bush appointed him as chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence 
Advisory Board.
  In National Security Presidential Directive 5, in May 2001, President 
Bush ordered a review of U.S. intelligence to ensure that U.S. 
intelligence capabilities are well designed to deal with that wide 
range of critical challenges facing the Nation. General Scowcroft was 
named to lead a commission to provide recommendations on intelligence 
reform as a result of that directive.
  However, the report of the Scowcroft Commission, which was submitted 
3 months after 9/11, continues to be classified, despite repeated 
requests from the Congress to release it.
  On July 21 this year an article by Shaun Waterman of United Press 
International, discussing the Scowcroft recommendations was published. 
As the article stated:

       Scowcroft's report, which remains classified, proposed 
     giving the existing CIA Director budget, administrative and 
     hire/fire control over the three largest and most expensive 
     agencies, according to former Office of Management and Budget 
     National Security Chief Richard Stubbings. The National 
     Security Agency, which intercepts phone calls, faxes, emails 
     and the like; the National Reconnaissance Office, which 
     designs, builds and maintains spy satellites; and the 
     National Geo-Spatial Intelligence Agency, which analyzes spy 
     satellite photos, would all be taken out of the Pentagon's 
     control and transferred--along with parts of the FBI--to the 
     control of a modified director post.

  That is the end of that report.
  Obviously these reformed submitted in December 2001, are very similar 
to the reforms proposed by the 9/11 Commission in the summer of 2004. 
In fact, similar proposals on intelligence reform have been made for 
almost 50 years.
  In 1955, a commission led by Herbert Hoover recommended splitting off 
CIA management duties so that the Director of Central Intelligence 
could focus on coordinating the entire intelligence community.
  In 1976, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence led by Frank 
Church recommended giving the Director control over intelligence 
budgets and relieving him of day-to-day CIA management 
responsibilities.
  in 1976, former Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford recommended 
establishing a National intelligence director.
  In 1985, Admiral Stansfield Turner recommended establishing a 
National intelligence director to oversee the entire intelligence 
community, with the CIA Director managing only the CIA.
  Despite these and other recommendations, needed intelligence reforms 
were never enacted.
  The 9/11 Commissioners were given a copy of the Scowcroft 
recommendations as background for their work, and the final report from 
the Commission drew significantly from his recommendations.
  Governor Thomas Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, made this 
point clearly at a Senate Select Intelligence Committee hearing last 
Tuesday. He said:

       And a number of the recommendations we've made have 
     synthesized things from people like Scowcroft and a number of 
     others who have made similar recommendations. And those 
     recommendations have not been implemented.

  Clearly, before we act on intelligence reform later this month, 
Congress should have benefit of General Scowcroft's recommendations as 
well. Congress faces a major task in reorganizing the intelligence 
community, at this time when the threats against our Nation are new and 
different. We must have the best information, advice and wisdom on this 
challenge, including a copy of the Scowcroft Commission report.
  General Scowcroft, I am told, will be talking to Members of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee this week in closed session about the 
report. But the meeting is for committee members only, is classified, 
and is off-the-record. I understand that none of the committee members 
will be permitted to read the report.
  Frankly, that is ridiculous. Every Member of Congress has an interest 
in being well-informed before voting on intelligence reform. Every 
American has an interest too. The 9/11 Commission's report and its 41 
recommendations are not classified, and General Scowcroft's should not 
be classified either.
  Congress should not be forced to rely on sketchy press reports for 
information on an issue with such important consequences for our 
National security

[[Page 18097]]

and our ability too fight the al-Qaida terrorists. It is irresponsible 
for the administration to keep Congress in the dark.
  We hope to complete action on legislation to implement the 9/11 
Commission recommendations before we adjourn. Given the enormous stakes 
for our Nation, it is unconscionable that the President has not already 
made an unclassified copy of the Scowcroft report available to us.
  There is bipartisan support for release of the Scowcroft Commission 
report and recommendations. In July, the Democratic leader asked the 
President to declassify the report. During an August 16 Senate Armed 
Services Committees hearing on the 9/11 Commission recommendations, 
Senator Warner, our distinguished Chairman, indicated that the Congress 
should have the report. He said:

       For the record, the Scowcroft Commission report has not 
     been released by the White House. So there has been some 
     public discussion of its major points, so we're going to look 
     into seeing whether or not we can have greater access to it.

  Senator Roberts, the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, also 
seeks the Scowcroft Commission report. At the same hearing, he said:

       I just had a talk with Brent Scowcroft last Thursday, and 
     even at my age, I begged him on hands and knee to release the 
     report to the Intelligence Committee and to the Armed 
     Services Committee.

  At our August 17 hearing, Senator Roberts said he agreed that ``it 
would be very helpful'' if the Scowcroft recommendations were released.
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has also indicated that he can't 
see any reason why the Scowcroft Report should not be declassified. 
When he testified in the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, he 
said:

       I've been briefed on the Scowcroft Commission report. I 
     don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a process going 
     through and see what portion of it can be declassified. I 
     don't know who classified it in the first place. It wasn't 
     the Department of Defense, to my knowledge. . . .

  Why does the administration refuse to declassify the report and make 
it available to Congress? Why would the administration knowingly put 
the Congress in the position of acting on an intelligence reform 
proposal with enormous consequences for our National security, without 
having an unclassified copy of this crucial report?
  The obvious reason is that the administration is desperate to avoid 
embarrassment about the President's mishandling of intelligence reform.
  The Scowcroft report and recommendations are nearly 3 years old. They 
were submitted to President Bush in December 2001--just 3 months after 
the devastating attacks on September 11. Now, finally, we are about to 
enact long-overdue reforms to enable our intelligence community to deal 
more effectively with terrorist threats and other threats to our 
security.
  The President needs to come clean. He should release a declassified 
copy of the report to the Congress so we can act responsibly on 
intelligence reform. The American people can decide for themselves 
whether the President has dragged his feet on intelligence reform for 
nearly 3 years, despite his current rhetoric about the need for change.
  I urge the President to declassify the Scowcroft Commission report 
immediately, and that is what my amendment would do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we appreciate very much the Senator's 
amendment and discussion of the Scowcroft Commission report and whether 
the contents of that report should be declassified. That is, as I 
understand it, the purpose of the amendment, to make that information 
public.
  What I hope we can do in the consideration of this appropriations 
bill is to keep our attention focused on the funding of the Department 
of Homeland Security activities. That is the purpose of this 
appropriations bill. We have worked very hard with colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee to identify priorities. We fully considered 
the President's budget request on issues surrounding funding levels. We 
know we do not have unlimited budget authority. We are limited by an 
allocation from the full Committee on Appropriations in the Senate.
  I hope we defer this issue to the consideration of the authorizing 
committee. The Intelligence Committee has this issue under review. As a 
matter of fact, this issue has already been raised, as I understand it, 
in hearings that are being held in consideration of the so-called 9/11 
Commission recommendations. We have had that report before the Senate. 
There are a number of other committees looking into these issues.
  But the Appropriations Committee is trying to get funds approved by 
the Congress to fund the Department of Homeland Security needs for this 
next fiscal year beginning October 1.
  I don't know whether the Senator wants a vote on his amendment, or 
maybe at the appropriate time after other Senators have had an 
opportunity to discuss their views, if they so choose, we could move to 
table the amendment. That would be my suggestion, that we remove that 
amendment from this bill and let it be handled by some other committee.
  I am sympathetic with the concerns the Senator has expressed, but I 
really do not think we ought to convert the consideration of an 
appropriations bill into consideration of whether to declassify or not 
the Scowcroft Commission report. That is my reaction to the amendment. 
I hope the Senate will consider our views.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator allow me to respond?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think the Senator is quite correct in 
terms of understanding that with an appropriations bill there are rules 
about whether we have legislation, et cetera, on appropriations, and 
that is done for good reason. The Senator has outlined some thoughts. 
The authorization, as the Senator knows, has already been passed and is 
now in conference.
  Let me mention this point, because we looked very carefully at this 
issue.
  The Scowcroft Commission deals with the amendment. There is the 
requirement that all amendments be related to the text of homeland 
security. The Scowcroft Commission report deals with collection, 
analysis, and dissemination of intelligence. The Department of Homeland 
Security plays an important role in these matters, and the Office of 
the Under Secretary for Information, Analysis and Infrastructure 
Protection is funded in this bill. On page 74, it says it is 
responsible for collecting and disseminating terrorist threat 
information, fusing and integrating data with foreign intelligence to 
produce a comprehensive picture of threat, and developing and 
implementing an action plan to mitigate terrorist threats and national 
vulnerabilities. The Scowcroft report addresses issues that would have 
a substantial impact on the way this office and all intelligence 
officials at the Department of Homeland Security conduct their work, 
and the quality of intelligence to a large extent determines whether 
the Department of Homeland Security is able to perform its mission and 
protect the public from future terrorists.
  On page 29 of the bill, $157 million is provided for intelligence 
functions in the Office of Director of Information, Analysis and 
Infrastructure in the Department of Homeland Security.
  Then section 504 of the bill specifically provides funds made 
available by this act for intelligence activities are determined to be 
specifically authorized by the Congress.
  This is legislative language authorizing the operation of a portion 
of the intelligence community.
  I want to say to the Senator that we thought long and hard about the 
appropriateness of this amendment. Reading through the legislation 
itself, it appeared these matters were directly in line with a number 
of at least some portions of the Scowcroft Commission report. 
Particularly since we have such a sense of urgency in ensuring that we 
are going to try to get it right with the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission and the Scowcroft report, given the fact, as I mentioned 
earlier, that Secretary Rumsfeld, Chairman Warner, Chairman Roberts all 
indicated

[[Page 18098]]

they thought it would be of use and value, it seemed to me this could 
be something we can all get behind and support.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his further 
comments to the Senate.
  I also at this time would like to propound a unanimous consent 
request which I understand has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. 
The distinguished leader from Nevada is here on the floor.
  I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the vote in 
relation to the Schumer amendment this evening, the Senate proceed to a 
vote in relation to the Lautenberg amendment No. 3617; provided further 
that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote. 
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally 
divided for debate prior to each vote.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding the 
first vote will occur at 5:30 or 5:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 5:30.
  Mr. REID. And it is my further understanding there has been consent 
entered that Senator Schumer could modify his amendment; is that true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may modify his amendment.


                    Amendment No. 3615, as Modified

  Mr. REID. That modification is at the desk and I ask it be brought 
forward in compliance with the unanimous consent request made by the 
Senator from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 3615), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 13, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:


                         Ground Transportation

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration to establish an identification and tracking 
     system for HAZMAT trucks and a background check system for 
     commercial driver licenses, $70,000,000.
       On page 2, line 17, strike $245,579,000 and insert 
     ``$175,579,000''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Mississippi?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, thank you.
  (The remarks of Mr. Conrad pertaining to the submission of S. Con. 
Res. 136 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent 
and Senate Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CONRAD. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been here with Senator Byrd and 
Senator Cochran trying to move this most important bill along. We 
learned over the weekend that developments had occurred and that we 
would not even ask for a filing deadline for tonight. That was the 
original plan. Senators who wished to offer amendments would have had 
to file, say, at 5 o'clock tonight. That being the case, we would have 
probably had maybe a dozen amendments, and we could finish those 
tomorrow. It may have taken a while, but we could have finished them 
with a good hard day's work tomorrow.
  We have been told now we have another supplemental for Florida coming 
along, and some people on the majority side want to include that in 
this bill. I think that is a real mistake. I want to do everything that 
I can to help the people of Florida; they have been through a lot. That 
has not ended yet, as you know, with Hurricane Ivan approaching, which 
may hit Florida again.
  We can finish this Homeland Security appropriations bill. I think 
that would be a real important thing to do before we leave for the 
Jewish holiday. I think if we try to include the supplemental 
appropriations bill as part of this, it is going to make it difficult, 
if not impossible, to finish because we have been told by Senator 
Nelson of Florida and by other Senators who are interested in what is 
going on in the farm country around the United States that on the next 
bill that comes, there is going to be an amendment on that, and there 
will be significant amendments that will require debate and a lot of 
money.
  I am not a visionary, by any means, but having been on the Senate 
floor a lot, I believe it will be difficult, if not impossible, to 
finish the bill--certainly not tomorrow night. It will spill over into 
Wednesday. We will not finish by 11 o'clock, or whatever time the 
leader wants to finish to allow people to go west for the holiday.
  So I ask respectfully that the majority take another look at this, 
and let's have a filing deadline quickly and finish this bill tomorrow. 
I know the majority wants to get as much work done as possible, and I 
respect that. We have been really good on these bills. We have been 
sticking to what we believe is the important work of the country, this 
Homeland Security bill. We entered into an agreement that we would only 
offer related amendments, and we stuck by that. We have so little time 
to do so much.
  I think if we went ahead and did this emergency supplemental, it 
would be much easier to do that as a standalone vehicle, not tie it 
into this because it will wind up hurting both vehicles. That is a real 
mistake. I am willing to work with the body to determine what is best 
for the country, but I suggest it is not going to be a different 
country to have this Homeland Security appropriations bill not 
completed.
  Senators Cochran and Byrd are two of the most experienced and wise 
people we have in the entire Senate. I think it complicates their job 
significantly to try to change the context of this bill from a homeland 
security bill to one that deals with a hurricane that occurred in 
Florida, and another hurricane that occurred in Florida, and maybe 
another one that will occur in Florida. I don't think the two matters 
are related. Again, I respectfully suggest that the majority take 
another look at this and see what we can do to separate the issues.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3615, As Further Modified

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment I have at the desk be modified by language that is at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:

       On page 13, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:


                         Ground Transportation

       For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security 
     Administration to support efforts for identification and 
     tracking for shipments of hazardous materials and continue 
     and expand upon the background check system for commercial 
     driver licenses with a HAZMAT endorsement, $70,000,000: 
     Provided, That the amount appropriated under title I for the 
     Human Resources Account of the Office of the Under Secretary 
     for Management shall be reduced by $70,000,000.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, at 5:30, we are going to be voting in the 
Senate on a motion to table the Schumer amendment. The Senator 
described his amendment recently and talked about the fact that the 
Department of Homeland Security has not done anything, essentially, to 
protect against the explosives or other dangers occurring when trucks 
with hazardous material are driven throughout the country, and

[[Page 18099]]

that an additional $70 million, I think, is the total amount of new 
money to be added to this bill for this purpose.
  It is described in the Senator's amendment as a tracking system for 
hazardous material trucks, hazmat trucks, and a background check system 
for commercial drivers' licenses.
  I am suggesting to the Senate that this is an additional $70 million 
that cannot be efficiently used for this purpose in 1 fiscal year, and 
I am going to tell you why.
  The Appropriations Committee has already provided funding for a 
number of different programs designed to accomplish the goals that the 
Senator has described in his comments about and his description of his 
amendment when he previously offered it.
  Last year, in fiscal year 2004, Congress appropriated $9.4 million 
for an effort to develop a high-explosive countermeasure system in the 
Science and Technology Directorate. Research is being undertaken and a 
program that will follow on is funded at $33.590 million to provide 
technologies and programs that would interdict explosive attacks 
against buildings from all modes of transportation, including trucking. 
It is also designed to protect critical infrastructure and the Nation's 
civilian population. This is an increase of $23.89 million from the 
budget request submitted by the administration.
  We have tried to communicate with the Transportation Security 
Administration and other agencies of the Department of Homeland 
Security to see what funds could be utilized to help make this the most 
sophisticated and effective system available to the American public in 
protecting buildings, protecting civilian populations, protecting the 
trucking systems and the infrastructure of our country against problems 
of vehicle bombs, problems of hazardous materials being confiscated and 
converted into explosives to damage infrastructure: highways, tunnels, 
bridges, buildings, and the like.
  So the Homeland Security Advanced Research Project Agency is issuing 
a broad agency announcement for systems for vehicle bomb detection 
using optical and nuclear thermal neutron analysis. The Science and 
Technology Directorate is piloting several sites using different means 
for detecting vehicle bombs at checkpoints. There are other initiatives 
to deny terrorists the use of commercial explosives and materials for 
making such bombs.
  So across the board, what I am saying, there is a broad indepth, 
comprehensive effort underway and using a variety of technologies and 
programs that seek to achieve, and will achieve, the goal suggested by 
the Senator from New York.
  We do not need to adopt this amendment to accomplish the goal he 
talks about that we need to pursue. We are doing what the Senator has 
suggested should be done.
  There is a Hazardous Material Shipper Training Program in place for 
drivers and others who are involved as employees in that industry, 
providing information about security requirements and responsibilities 
of those engaged in the trucking industry. It is promoting security 
awareness for each mode of transportation, not just truckers but other 
shippers as well.
  Funds have been provided in the 2004 appropriations bill to test 
certain technologies, new technologies to track high-risk trucks on the 
Nation's highways. The Senator said there is no program such as that in 
place. Programs are being tested to be implemented. We want to be sure 
the Transportation Security Administration has the ability to track 
vehicles throughout the entire country, in Alaska and Hawaii as well, 
to identify the best practices and the standards and regulations that 
ought to be implemented and enforced by Federal, State, local, and 
industry stakeholders as well.
  Congress has provided over $42 million for the Highway Watch Program 
to promote security awareness among all segments of the commercial 
motor carrier industry and the transportation community at large. For 
this fiscal year, in this bill that is before the Senate, $15 million 
is provided for this program.
  For the previous 2 fiscal years, $12 million has been provided for 
the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration to test and evaluate a variety of 
technologies, such as global positioning systems, wireless 
communications, use of global positioning satellites, alarm systems, 
biometric identification, and radio frequency identification devices to 
ensure that dangerous or potentially dangerous vehicles are identified.
  Field testing has just been completed, and the evaluation phase in 
this program has begun. These are steps toward the goal that we all 
share, and that is identified by the Senator from New York as a very 
imminent and urgent need. It is an urgent need, and we are treating it 
as such over the prior appropriations bill's approval and provisions, 
as well as this year's appropriations bill.
  There was a mandate in the PATRIOT Act that the Transportation 
Security Administration has implemented, in partnership with the 
departments in the State motor vehicle area, to ensure that all drivers 
who are licensed to transport hazardous materials are subjected to 
Federal background checks to be sure the people who are operating these 
vehicles ought to be operating them; that they are not high-risk 
people; that they do not have something in their background that raises 
alarms about their dependability.
  The Transportation Security Administration has undertaken background 
checks on 2.7 million drivers who have hazardous materials endorsements 
on their commercial driver's licenses. These background checks have 
identified approximately 36 individuals who are no longer allowed to 
transport hazardous materials. TSA will complete this background check, 
and when it is completed they will have conducted name-based background 
checks on all 3.5 million drivers this year. There will be an FBI 
fingerprint-based criminal history check undertaken as well.
  The offset would affect the Office of Under Secretary of Management's 
Human Resources Division.
  In terms of research, what I am suggesting is that every effort 
possible is being made, through grants provided by the Department of 
Homeland Security, technology development, and deployment in the 
department, to develop a more efficient system for identifying drivers 
to be sure they are trustworthy and are not threats to the Nation's 
security through the operation of vehicles carrying hazardous 
materials, the confiscation of vehicles that are carrying hazardous 
materials or that could be converted into bombmaking vehicles. All of 
this is being done in an aggressive and comprehensive way by the 
Department of Homeland Security, in cooperation with State and local 
authorities throughout the country.
  Private sector groups, shippers who are undertaking to safeguard the 
content of packages that go into vehicles, are also very actively 
involved in helping ensure that the public is not going to be put in 
danger through the use of our transportation system in this way.
  We think the provisions of the bill are adequate. To provide funding 
that the Senator is suggesting is needed will be wasteful and cannot be 
efficiently used for the purposes he seeks. The goals are notable and 
laudable. We share them and we are doing everything we can to ensure 
that we have in place the programs, training, research, and 
technologies that we need to protect ourselves from these kinds of 
attacks and attacks against the Nation's critical infrastructure and 
population centers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Mississippi for 
his graciousness in allowing this amendment to be modified. I agree 
with him that we have the same goals, but our analysis of how well we 
are progressing toward those goals is woefully inadequate.
  I want to make clear what the amendment seeks to do because there 
have been some concerns raised by the American Trucking Association and 
some truck firms. To address those concerns, which I did not think were 
real, I modified the amendment to make that clear. Here is what the

[[Page 18100]]

amendment does not do: It does not require that members of the trucking 
industry purchase GPS systems for their truck fleets. It does not 
require trucking companies to present plans to TSA of current truck 
routes throughout the country.
  My amendment simply provides the TSA with the resources to begin 
looking into how we go about monitoring what has been shown to us as a 
vulnerability within our existing plan to secure our country from 
terrorist threats. I know the ATA, which has resisted any regulation of 
the trucking industry, has raised some concerns, but their concerns are 
either incorrect or shortsighted.
  My amendment provides the TSA with flexibility and much needed funds 
to address truck security and has none of the mandates or high costs 
that have been talked about. Both the TSA and DOT, I will agree with my 
friend from Mississippi, are currently working on improving and 
expanding truck-tracking systems and background checks for commercial 
driver's licenses with the HAZMAT endorsement. But let me suggest 
something. Here is the plan. First, they were doing nothing, and a 
year, a year and a half ago, I prodded and prodded. So now the plan is 
that any new application for a HAZMAT license will be checked out, a 
background check will be given. The problem is, all existing licenses 
will not be checked until they are renewed.
  Since most States have 5-year renewal periods, we are not going to 
check many of these licenses until 2007, 2008, 2009, even 2010.
  When one asks the TSA why they are not doing it more quickly, they 
say one word: Money. We do not have the money.
  It is hardly believable that $10 million here or $9.4 million there, 
which is spread across a whole lot of programs and research, will be 
enough. So the bottom line is, we agree that we have to do this, but I 
would rather err on the side of making sure we get it done quickly, 
given that the terrorists have said--at least with al-Qaida--that truck 
bombs are a preferred weapon. Every one of us knows what has happened. 
We have not provided the money we need in homeland security, whether it 
is truck security or anything else. We slow-walk these programs.
  To say that somebody could have a hazardous material license and be 
on a terrorist watch list and we will not catch up to them until 2010 
makes no sense. When TSA says they have not done this or not done it 
quickly because they do not have the money, what we do is provide them 
the money. There is an offset, an offset from a pot of money that 
simply says let us outsource some structural personnel reorganizing.
  It amazes me that we could spend $70 million for that but only $15 
million for the whole program of truck security.
  As for the GPS system, it is needed. We do not mandate it because we, 
like our friend from Mississippi, are not sure exactly the best way to 
go. But we sure want TSA to come up with a plan quickly and figure out 
how to do it and not impose the costs on the trucking industry if need 
be.
  Here in America, a lot of companies put in a GPS system on their own, 
not to deal with terrorism but to deal with stolen trucks.
  I remind my colleagues that a truck carrying hazardous material is 
missing, gone, from Pennsauken, NJ, not far from my city, and we still 
do not know where it is. We do not know what has been done with it. In 
all likelihood, it was stolen for mercenary purposes. But can we afford 
the risk that the next truck is stolen for terrorist purposes?
  Simply training with the ATA program, which trains truck drivers on 
safety in terms of terrorism, does not deal with the fact that a 
terrorist might wish to steal a truck, hijack a truck, use a truck. All 
the training programs of good drivers, legitimate drivers in the world 
will not deal with that, and that is why we believe these other steps 
are so needed.
  The bottom line is this is not a whole lot of money. This is a 
serious threat. It is offset. There are no mandates. Again, I say to my 
colleagues, we do not wish to wake up one morning and say: What if--God 
forbid there was a terrible incident--we had done more and allocated 
the money needed?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 5:30 having arrived, there will be 
2 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to table the Schumer amendment. I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thought there were 2 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator would have to withhold his motion 
to table.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that in spite of the motion by the 
Senator from Mississippi, there be 2 minutes equally divided on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the American Trucking Association has 
delivered a letter to me. It is signed by 34 organizations or 
industries that are concerned that the passage of the Schumer amendment 
would result in an enormous burden on our national economic recovery, 
that it would impose enormous costs on many industries, that it would 
force haulers to undertake expensive new activities that have not been 
approved or suggested by the Transportation Security Administration as 
necessary or as improvements to the security systems now in place. This 
is a three-page letter. Rather than have it read into the Record, I ask 
unanimous consent the letter, dated September 13, addressed to me, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               American Trucking Associations,

                               Washington, DC, September 13, 2004.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We urge you to vote no on the Schumer 
     Amendment to the Department of Homeland Security 
     Appropriations for FY 2005.
       The Schumer Amendment would (1) mandate background checks 
     for drivers transporting hazardous materials; (2) require 
     trucks transporting hazardous materials to be equipped with 
     global positioning satellite (GPS) tracking devices; and (3) 
     require written route plans to be prepared and filed with the 
     Department prior to transporting hazardous materials. For the 
     reasons set forth below, these initiatives are not necessary, 
     will not ensure the secure transportation of hazardous 
     materials, and will cause most trucking companies to embargo 
     these vital commodities.


                           backgroiund checks

       Pursuant to the mandate contained in the USA PATRIOT Act, 
     the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has 
     implemented a program to ensure that all drivers licensed to 
     transport hazardous materials are subjected to a federal 
     background check. to date, TSA has run background checks on 
     the 2.7 million drivers that have hazardous materials 
     endorsements to their commercial drivers' licenses. These 
     background checks have identified approximately three dozen 
     individuals who may no longer be able to transport hazardous 
     materials. Background checks are continuing under this TSA 
     program and this portion of the amendment mandating 
     background checks is duplicative and not necessary.


          hazardous materials are critical to the u.s. economy

       There are more than 800,000 shipments of hazardous 
     materials each day. Regulated hazardous materials include 
     such items as pharmaceuticals, paint, hairspray, pesticides, 
     airbags, cigarette lighters and other consumer commodities. 
     In fact, the vast majority of hazardous materials transported 
     do not pose a plausible risk of use in a terrorist attack. 
     Nevertheless, the amendment would require transporters to 
     equip literally hundreds of thousands of trucks with 
     expensive tracking technology. The prenotification of route 
     plans referenced by the Senator in his floor statement would 
     frustrate the ability of hospitals to provide prompt or 
     immediate medical treatments to their patients, hamper 
     agricultural distributors' ability to provide farmers with 
     the fertilizers and pesticides they depend upon and greatly 
     increase the cost of many consumer commodities, such as home 
     heating oil.


                  global positioning satellite mandate

       The pending amendment would require any truck carrying 
     hazardous materials to be

[[Page 18101]]

     equipped with GPS technology that would enable the government 
     to determine its location at all times. GPS systems, however, 
     are easily defeated by cutting power to the transponder, 
     otherwise disabling the transponder, shielding the 
     transponder, parking the truck in an area that does not have 
     ``line of sight'' to the satellite, offloading the cargo to 
     another truck or simply decoupling the trailer and hooking it 
     up to an alternative power unit leaving the original power 
     unit with its transponder on the side of the road.
       Moreover, GPS systems are expensive. Senator Schumer's 
     estimate of $200 for the cost of GPS is not accurate in the 
     context of real-time 2-way communication GPS technology. The 
     purchase and installation of ``hardened'' GPS transponders 
     costs more than $1,500 per vehicle. In addition, the annual 
     communication costs may exceed $1,000 per vehicle depending 
     upon how often the truck is ``pinged'' by the satellite. 
     Because hazardous materials comprise only a small percentage 
     of the freight transported by the trucking industry, the 
     trucking industry does not dedicate specific trucks to 
     transport hazardous materials. As a result, the pending 
     amendment would require the industry to equip virtually the 
     entire fleet. Faced with these enormous costs most companies 
     would simply refuse to haul hazardous materials, which could 
     cripple the U.S. manufacturing industries and deal a severe 
     blow to our economic recovery.


                     written route plan requirement

       The pending amendment would require motor carriers to file 
     written route plans with the government for purposes of route 
     verification. This proposal could actually comprise security 
     as a terrorist could exploit the carrier's or government's 
     communication systems used to transmit route plans, which 
     would provide the terrorist with a virtual shopping list of 
     certain desirable hazardous materials.
       This proposal would require the expenditure of enormous 
     administrative resources necessary to devise, transmit and 
     verify the route plans. Moreover, written route plans are not 
     practicable to implement in many trucking operations. While 
     written route plans may be implemented in a truckload 
     environment where a carrier picks up a load of materials at 
     one location and delivers it to its final destination, a 
     significant amount of freight is moved in the less-than-
     truckload or package & delivery environment, where written 
     route plans are not feasible because the freight may be 
     transloaded several times before delivery. For these 
     carriers, the costs associated with providing this service 
     would far outweigh the revenue opportunities from such low 
     volume freight. As a result, many of the safest and most 
     responsible carriers will no longer carry hazardous 
     materials. The removal of competitive forces from this 
     segment of the hazardous materials transportation market will 
     result in significant price increases in the cost of 
     transporting this freight. Moreover, the administrative 
     burden to the federal, state and local governments of real 
     time tracking of several hundred thousand daily shipments is 
     enormous. Finally, the transportation of radioactive 
     materials and certain explosives are already subject to 
     additional stringent safety and security requirements of the 
     Department of Transportation.


                          fmcsa study pending

                      (the amendment is premature)

       In his floor statement introducing his amendment, Senator 
     Schumer argued for the implementation of ``global positioning 
     satellite (GPS)'' technology to track all truck shipments of 
     hazardous materials. Respectfully, the Senator's proposal is 
     premature and may frustrate the development of more effective 
     and less costly alternatives.
       It is important that the Senator be aware of a current 
     research project, which began almost a year ago, under the 
     auspices of the Department of Transportation's Federal Motor 
     Carrier Safety Administration. That project, referred to as 
     the ``Field Operations Test'' (FOT), involves the testing and 
     evaluation of a variety of technologies including GPS, 
     wireless communications, global positioning satellites, 
     ``panic buttons and alarms'', ``geo-fencing'', biometric 
     identification and radio frequency identification devices.
       The field testing has just been completed, and, the 
     evaluation phase has already begun. Already, SAIC and Batelle 
     have produced a multi-volume draft report which has been 
     circulated (on a limited basis) to security specialists 
     within both government and industry.
       The Senate should pause until the evaluation and reports 
     are complete, and final recommendations have been submitted 
     to both the Department of Transportation and the Department 
     of Homeland Security.
       We urge you to defeat the Schumer amendment.
           Respectfully submitted,
       Agricultural Retailers Association
       American Chemistry Council
       American Farm Bureau Federation
       American Petroleum Institute
       American Pyrotechnics Association
       American Trucking Associations
       Chlorine Chemistry Council
       Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
       Compressed Gas Association
       Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles
       The Chlorine Institute
       Dangerous Goods Advisory Council
       The Fertilizer Institute
       Institute of Makers of Explosives
       Industrial Packaging Alliance of North America
       International Vessel Operators Hazardous Materials 
     Association
       International Warehouse Logistics Association
       National Association of Chemical Distributors
       National Association of Convenience Stores
       National Association of Manufacturers
       National Association of Truck Stop Operators
       National Paint & Coatings Association
       National Private Truck Council
       National Propane Gas Association
       National Tank Truck Carriers
       Nuclear Energy Institute
       Petroleum Marketers Association of America
       Radiopharmaceuticals Shippers & Carriers Conference
       Reusable Industrial Packaging Association
       Steel Shipping Container Institute
       Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America
       Truckload Carriers Association
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce
       Utility Solid Waste Activities Group.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think the Senate has heard as much 
discussion as they probably need to form an opinion about this 
amendment. We urge Senators to vote yes on the motion to table and 
permit the committee to continue to work with the Department and 
industries that are involved to bring the best possible technologies 
into play to protect the security of our country and the transportation 
industries.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, let me make a couple of quick points.
  First, the ATA letter says there are mandates. It was written before 
we modified the amendment. If there were any, there was no intention to 
have mandates, but now the amendment as modified makes it clear, so I 
think their letter is outdated.
  Of course, no industry wants any regulation. We are in a brave new 
world. The airline industry didn't want anything done after 9/11 unless 
the Federal Government paid for the whole thing. We are not outlining 
what ought to be done and what mandates should be, but we ought to move 
forward and find out how to make our trucks, particularly the trucks 
carrying hazardous materials, safer.
  It is a small amount of money. It says take $70 million out of a pot 
of money to outsource, to make TSA more efficient, and put it into 
truck security to do two things: First, to check on who can get a 
driver's license for hazardous materials, to avoid a situation like the 
one when hijackers were able to go fly planes, and, second, to study 
how to set up a GPS system so we can track trucks in case they are 
stolen.
  I urge support of the amendment. I think we would be foolhardy not to 
do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from North Carolina 
(Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry). and the 
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Brownback), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell), the Senator from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. 
Voinovich) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Kansas 
(Mr. Brownback) would vote ``yea.''
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 173 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett

[[Page 18102]]


     Bond
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Burns
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Warner

                                NAYS--34

     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Akaka
     Brownback
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Corzine
     Edwards
     Gregg
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Reed
     Voinovich
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion to table was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3617

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Under the previous order, 
there will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided on the Lautenberg 
amendment.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by 
Senator Corzine and me. The amendment simply adds $100 million to 
ensure that the Coast Guard is going to have adequate funding for its 
nonhomeland security measures.
  It is interesting; we fund Iraq's coast guard, and now the Iraqi 
Coastal Defense Force is receiving U.S. tax dollars for Chinese-built 
boats and crew training. If we can find money for Iraq's coast guard, 
then surely we can adequately fund our own Coast Guard. They perform 
services that are essential.
  We need to add this funding because GAO found that the Coast Guard 
has to dip into its nonhomeland budget during times of elevated 
security alert. That means missions such as search and rescue, 
protecting our fisheries, ice-breaking operations, marine pollution, 
migrants, drug interdiction, and other law enforcement issues as well.
  The amendment is still $150 million less than the amount authorized 
in the Coast Guard bill signed into law just last month by the 
President. I urge my colleagues to look at their coastline and decide 
whether they ought to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment offers to add a 
substantial amount of money to the operational budget of the U.S. Coast 
Guard. I remind Senators that the Coast Guard's total appropriation in 
this next fiscal year is $705 million above last year's appropriation. 
It is about $134 million above the President's request for overall U.S. 
Coast Guard activity. We urge the Senate to vote no against the 
Lautenberg amendment.
  I make a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional 
Budget Act that the amendment provides spending in excess of the 
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of the Congressional Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator seek the yeas and nays?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Brownback), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell), the Senator from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. 
Voinovich), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from North Carolina 
(Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the 
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) are necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 38, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 174 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Collins
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bunning
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Akaka
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Corzine
     Edwards
     Gregg
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Reed
     Voinovich
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 38, the nays are 
50. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 3621

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3621 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3621.

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

     (Purpose: To set aside an amount for a pilot project to test 
  interoperable communications between the first Northern Border Air 
   Wing, Bellingham, Washington, and local law enforcement personnel)

       On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       Sec. 515. Of the 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'', $5,000,000 may be 
     used for a pilot project to test interoperable communications 
     between the first Northern Border Air Wing, Bellingham, 
     Washington, and local law enforcement personnel.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment I just called up has been 
agreed to on both sides. It simply allows our northern Air Guard to be 
able to communicate with those on the ground and use available funds.
  I have talked with the managers on both sides, and I believe the 
amendment is agreed to. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we reviewed the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Washington. We agree to support it, and we ask the Senate 
to adopt it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.

[[Page 18103]]

  The amendment (No. 3621) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are at a point in the deliberations 
that I think we can be pleased with the progress we have made so far 
last week as well as today. We hope to be able to push ahead and 
complete action on this bill tomorrow evening. That is the expectation 
of the leadership. But I know we have a number of amendments that 
Senators are preparing to offer tomorrow. There are also four 
amendments that we have had discussion on which have not yet been 
disposed of. But in view of the fact we have made such good progress 
and there are other activities that are important to Senators off the 
floor at this point in the evening, it is my hope that we will go into 
morning business and let the leadership decide how long that will be.
  I thank my friend from Nevada, who has been very helpful in handling 
the bill on the floor, along with our other leaders on our side of the 
aisle as well, particularly Senator Frist, the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have tonight a couple of amendments, 
maybe even three, that people could offer. I talked with Senator 
Dayton, and he said he wants to offer one which will take 5 minutes. It 
is up to the manager whether he wants to do that tonight or tomorrow. 
We also have two Feingold amendments that should be accepted, we 
understand, and a Levin amendment. It is up to the manager.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are happy to stay here as long as 
there is business to be transacted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, since I last spoke on the Senate floor 
about how we should proceed on this bill, or made suggestions, I have 
learned that the House leadership has said they are going to spend all 
week looking at the next supplemental dealing with Florida.
  Whether that is the case or not, I do not know. All I know is that is 
what they have said. I again ask the majority to take a close look at 
what we are doing. Let us finish Homeland Security appropriations and 
worry about Florida--and I realize it takes a lot of worrying because 
they have had calamities that are untoward in our history, but let us 
get rid of this Homeland Security bill. I say that in a positive sense.
  We have made good progress. I think the amendments have been listed. 
We can get rid of these, and again I hate to use a term like that--we 
can dispose of these amendments. We can adopt and accept some of them. 
I think we could do it even maybe tomorrow evening. But if we are going 
to complicate this matter with the supplemental appropriations, it is 
going to make things real tough to finish this bill.
  I am here only to serve the body and do whatever I can to move things 
along. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 3629

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

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3629.

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

     (Purpose: To ensure the continuation of benefits for certain 
     individuals providing security services for Federal buildings)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Amounts appropriated under this Act for expenses 
     related to the protection of federally owned and leased 
     buildings and for the operations of the Federal Protective 
     Service shall not be made available unless the Service 
     implements procedures to ensure that, with respect to 
     contracts (including subcontracts) entered into on or after 
     May 30, 2004 with private security firms to provide 
     protective services for federally owned or leased buildings, 
     the terms of such contracts are not modified in a manner that 
     results in a change in benefits for the employees involved 
     unless the employees involved consent to such changes.

  Mr. DAYTON. I thank the manager of this bill for the opportunity to 
present my amendment tonight.
  Unfortunately, this amendment is unfortunately necessary to protect 
the security of the men and women who protect our security day and 
night in States such as Minnesota. As my colleagues will recall, when 
the Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002, the Congress 
granted the Secretary of the new Department of Homeland Security the 
unprecedented power to override longstanding employee contracts. He or 
she was given the power to hire, fire, promote, demote, or do anything 
to the employees of that new agency.
  Some of us opposed that unprecedented, unwarranted, and unnecessary 
power. A couple of my colleagues were vilified, demonized, and defeated 
for opposing that unilateral power. The majority in this body, at the 
insistence of the Bush administration, voted for it. Well, they got it.
  So of the security guards in the Federal building where I have my 
office in Minnesota and elsewhere, I am told a private contractor took 
over their contract this July, and without consultation, without 
negotiation, or without consent altered their health benefit payments. 
It saves this big company taxes.
  Of course, they could underbid the existing contractor and take that 
out of the benefits of those security guards in Minnesota to the 
detriment of them and their families.
  The result has been that since July 1, 15 to 20 percent of that local 
guard force has had to quit, look for a new job, or take a second job. 
Others have not been able to meet their house and car payments. They 
are having a harder time concentrating on work, their work being to 
protect the people who work in my office, my constituents.
  One guard had a heart problem and had to be taken from work to the 
hospital in an ambulance because of the stress that was imposed. He 
received medical services that now, as a result of this contract 
change, he does not have the money to pay for.
  It takes 70 to 80 hours to train a new security guard. For a full-
timer, that is about 10 full-time days. For part-timers, that can take 
up to a month depending on their part-time schedule. So this is not 
saving the taxpayers money. This is saving the private contractor 
money. It is providing greater profits for that company at the expense 
of the health and economic security of the people who are providing 
that security day and night in Minnesota and other States because their 
protections were stripped out and eliminated when this new Department 
of Homeland Security was created.
  I say, respectfully, to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
as well as to the chairman of the subcommittee and the distinguished 
ranking member, I know they have expressed in the past their reluctance 
to adopt policy changes in appropriations measures, but the health, 
security and protections of the people in Minnesota, unfortunately, 
cannot wait for some other measure to come forward. So I believe it is 
essential that I bring forward this amendment, and I ask my colleagues 
to consider it.
  It very simply says--and I would be quite happy to go back further in 
time, but for the sake of this particular situation and others like 
it--for contracts that have been taken over through low-ball bidding 
since May 30, 2004, alterations in health protection and health 
coverage have to be negotiated with the employees or with their 
bargaining unit. To me, this is the minimal measure of protection that 
should be granted to every employee in the Federal Government, in this 
agency, or any other.
  At 5:25 p.m., I received stated objections from someone at the 
Federal Protective Service purporting to represent

[[Page 18104]]

the official response of the Department of Homeland Security. Once 
again, the existing Federal agency at the last minute has objections to 
the legislation that could have been presented to me today, last week, 
whenever. My staff has been in discussion with the majority and the 
minority staff on the committee for the last few days. Less than 2 
hours ago, to receive from the agency involved their stated objections 
that they will use, I assume to try to defeat this amendment, I find to 
be offensive.
  They, once again, presume that because they have this authorizing 
legislation that grants the Secretary unilateral, complete, absolute 
power to make these changes in people's contracts that affect their 
lives, that affect their families, they do not even need to bother to 
respond to proposed legislation, which is exactly the reason this 
should not have been passed to begin with; exactly the reason employees 
should have due process; exactly the reason this ought to be in 
contract bargaining procedures so that those changes that are going to 
be made have to go through a negotiation or discussion with the elected 
representatives of those affected employees.
  We have gone too far in creating this department and giving that 
unilateral authority to any single individual. This is a step back in 
the proper direction that is not in any way going to affect the 
national security of this country. In fact, I take that back. It will 
only enhance the national security of this country, of the Federal 
employees in the Federal buildings such as in Minnesota and the 
citizens who go to those buildings to meet with their elected 
representatives because they will be better qualified, better trained, 
more capable people, including those who now hold those jobs, except 
for those who have been forced to leave those jobs. So there will be 
better national security at a lower cost to the taxpayer when the 
retraining and other ancillary costs are included.
  The only one that will be adversely affected by this will be the 
private employer who is underbid and is trying to extract additional 
profits out of the economic security of those employees and the public 
security of those they protect.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his suggestion of 
this change. As I understand the amendment, it would limit the 
appropriation provided in this bill by restricting the opportunities 
for the Federal Protective Service to enter into certain contracts. It 
imposes conditions under which they can engage in contract activities 
for protective services at Federal building sites.
  I am advised by the Federal Protective Service, which is under the 
Department of Homeland Security, that this is an amendment not 
supported by the administration. There are those who are involved in 
helping to safeguard the security of Federal buildings and other 
facilities. They have limited resources which they say would be 
significantly diverted from the primary mission of providing the 
professional, qualified, and capable security guard service according 
to contracts and the needs of individual locations. The restrictive 
language of the amendment is counterproductive to the progress the 
Federal Protective Service has made.
  So the argument that I have to make and that I am happy to make is 
that this amendment should not be included in this legislation, and we 
would be forced to resist it. I will urge my colleagues to vote against 
it at the appropriate time.
  The leadership has indicated, I think, either formally or informally, 
that there will be no further rollcall votes this evening, so this is 
an issue that would have to go over until tomorrow, and we will be 
happy to discuss the details more fully tomorrow so that all Senators 
are aware of the impact this amendment would have on the Federal 
Protective Service and its ability to do its job.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set 
aside so that other matters may be brought up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there is a matter I can bring to the 
attention of the Senate, a modification of an amendment that has 
already been adopted.


                    Amendment No. 3618, As Modified

  On behalf of Senator Byrd and myself, I offer a modification to 
amendment No. 3618 which was adopted by voice vote on Friday, September 
10, 2004.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 3618), as modified, is as follows:

       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 $150,000,000. Of such total 
     amount, as so increased, $50,000,000 is provided for 
     radiation detection devices, $50,000,000 is provided for 
     additional border inspectors, and $50,000,000 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 $100,000,000. Of such total 
     amount, as so increased, $50,000,000 is provided for 
     additional investigator personnel, and $50,000,000 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 $128,000,000. The total amount provided in the 
     aforementioned heading for discretionary grants is increased 
     by $128,000,000. Of that total amount as so increased, the 
     amount for rail and transit security grants is increased by 
     $128,000,000.
       ``(d) The total amount appropriated under the 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) Section 13031(j)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus 
     Budget Reconcillation Act of 1985 as amended by this bill, 
     strike ``June 1, 2005'' and insert ``September 30, 2005.''


              Amendments Nos. 3585, 3602 and 3620, En Bloc

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. First of all, I move to set aside any pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed 
en bloc to the consideration of amendments Nos. 3585, 3602, and 3620, 
the first two offered by Senator Feingold, the third by Senator Levin. 
It is my understanding they have been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. There is no objection to consideration of the 
amendments. They have been cleared on this side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are 
considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments were considered and agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                           amendment no. 3585

(Purpose: To require the development of a transportation security plan, 
                        and for other purposes)

       On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       Sec. 515. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall--
       (1) develop and maintain an integrated strategic 
     transportation security plan; and
       (2) base future budget requests on the plan.
       (b) The integrated strategic transportation security plan 
     shall--
       (1) identify and evaluate the United States transportation 
     assets that need to be protected;
       (2) set risk-based priorities for defending the assets 
     identified;
       (3) select the most practical and cost-effective ways of 
     defending the assets identified; and
       (4) assign transportation security roles and missions to 
     the relevant Federal, State, regional, and local authorities 
     and to the private sector.

[[Page 18105]]

       (c) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit the 
     integrated strategic transportation security plan to Congress 
     not later than February 1, 2005 and shall submit updated 
     plans, including assessments of the progress made on 
     implementation of the plan, on the first day of February each 
     year thereafter. Any part of the plan that involves 
     information that is properly classified under criteria 
     established by Executive order shall be submitted to Congress 
     separately in classified form.


                           amendment no. 3602

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to report to 
Congress on goods purchased by the Department of Homeland Security that 
            were manufactured outside of the United States)

       On page 3, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
       Sec. 101. (a) Not later than 180 days after the end of 
     fiscal year 2005, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     submit a report to Congress that describes the articles, 
     materials, and supplies acquired by the Department of 
     Homeland Security during fiscal year 2005 that were 
     manufactured outside of the United States.
       (b) The report submitted under subsection (a) shall 
     separately indicate--
       (1) the dollar value of each of the articles, materials, 
     and supplies acquired by the Department of Homeland Security 
     that were manufactured outside of the United States;
       (2) an itemized list of all waivers granted with respect to 
     such articles, materials, or supplies under the Buy American 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.); and
       (3) a summary of the total funds spent by the Department of 
     Homeland Security on goods manufactured within the United 
     States compared with funds spent by the Department of 
     Homeland Security on goods manufactured outside of the United 
     States.
       (c) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall make the 
     report submitted under this section publicly available to the 
     maximum extent practicable.


                           amendment no. 3620

   (Purpose: To clarify the prohibition on contracting with foreign 
                         incorporated entities)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Section 835 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-296; 6 U.S.C. 395) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting before the period ``, 
     or any subsidiary of such an entity'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``before, on, or'' 
     after the ``completes'';
       (3) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking ``which is after 
     the date of enactment of this Act and''; and
       (4) in subsection (d), by striking ``homeland'' and 
     inserting ``national''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3602

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering today 
would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit to Congress 
a report on the amount of goods acquired by the Department during 
fiscal year 2005 that were made overseas.
  I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee for working with me to include this important provision in 
the bill.
  My amendment would extend for another year with respect to the 
Department of Homeland Security a provision that was enacted as part of 
the fiscal year 2004 omnibus spending bill requiring all Federal 
departments and agencies to submit to Congress a report about goods 
that they purchase that are made outside of the United States. These 
reports will improve the disclosure of the amount of foreign-made goods 
purchased by the federal government.
  My amendment, like current law, requires that this report include the 
following information: (a) the dollar value of any articles, materials, 
or supplies purchased that are manufactured outside of the United 
States; (b) an itemized list of all waivers of the Buy American Act 
granted with respect to such articles, materials, or supplies, and (c) 
a summary of total procurement funds spent on goods manufactured in the 
United States versus funds spent on goods manufactured outside of the 
United States.
  The amendment also requires that the report be made publicly 
available to the maximum extent practicable.
  Prior to the enactment earlier this year of the Government-wide Buy 
American reporting requirement that I authored, only the Department of 
Defense was required to report annually on its use of waivers of 
domestic procurement laws. Last year, I introduced legislation to 
strengthen the Buy American Act of 1933, the statute that governs 
procurement by the Federal Government. The name of the Act accurately 
and succinctly describes its purpose: to ensure that the Federal 
Government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying 
American-made goods. One part of my bill would require that all Federal 
departments and agencies submit annual reports on their purchases. The 
amendment that I am offering today is based on that provision in my 
bill.
  The Buy American Act requires that the Federal Government support 
domestic businesses and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. 
I am pleased to note that the underlying bill includes language that 
states that none of the funds appropriated to the Department of 
Homeland Security may be used in contravention of the applicable 
provisions of the Buy American Act.
  It only makes sense that Federal departments and agencies be required 
to report to Congress on their compliance with Federal law and with 
congressional intent regarding this important matter.
  The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being 
spent, and to what extent these dollars are being used to support 
foreign jobs. I look forward to reviewing the fiscal year 2004 versions 
of these reports, and I am pleased that the managers have worked with 
me to extend the requirement for the Department of Homeland Security 
for fiscal year 2005. I will continue my efforts to ensure that this 
simple reporting requirement is made permanent for all Federal 
departments and agencies.
  Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee 
for agreeing to accept my amendment, and I yield the floor.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3620

                               CONTRACTS

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, does the amendment apply 
to any existing contract at the Department of Homeland Security?
  Mr. LEVIN. No, the amendment would only apply to new contracts signed 
after the date of enactment.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator. Does that mean that the Senator's 
amendment will not prohibit any task order, change order or extension 
issued in connection with an existing contract awarded prior to the ate 
of enactment?
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct. The intent of the amendment is to 
only capture new contracts.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator. So this amendment will not impact 
task orders issued under the US VISIT contract awarded to Accenture and 
the Smart Border Alliance?
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct, the amendment is not intended to 
impact that contract or any task orders issued under the US VISIT 
contract.
  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.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum, unless the manager has 
more.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I do not know of any other Senator who is 
planning to speak or offer an amendment at this time, so I think it is 
appropriate to put in a quorum call, unless we go to morning business.

                          ____________________