To make a technical correction.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005--Resumed

The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the information of the Senate, under a
previous order, following the adjournment of the Senate yesterday, H.R.
5005, making supplemental appropriations, was received from the House
and considered passed by the Senate.
Also for the information of the Senate, all after the enacting clause
of H.R. 4567, the Homeland Security appropriations bill, has been
stricken. The text of S. 2537 has been inserted in lieu thereof and
considered original text for the purpose of further amendments, and no
points of order have been waived.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to present this
appropriations bill to the Senate. It is the culmination of a lot of
hard work by all of the members of our subcommittee, as we conducted
hearings to review the proposed budget from the Department of Homeland
Security, and as we listened to those who have responsibilities for
managing the various directorates and other agencies and activities
that come within the ambit of the responsibilities of the Homeland
Security Department.
We learned a lot in the hearings. We learned about new procedures
that were being developed and deployed. We learned about new
technologies that were being explored. In the bioterrorism area, we
were learning about the research that is being done to make our
capacity more sophisticated and capable of protecting the health and
safety of all Americans from attacks in that area.
We have been challenged as we have never been challenged before to
look again carefully at how we go about protecting the citizens of our
great country. The experience of September 11, of course, stays in our
mind as something that is unthinkable. The fact that it did happen is
still unbelievable, and we realize that we have the responsibility--
representatives of the people of this country serving in Congress
today--to try to get it right so that kind of thing can't happen again.
We are blessed to be served in the administration by people such as
Tom Ridge, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
The President recommended this new Department be created. The Congress
responded. The Governmental Affairs Committee, on which I served at
that time, dealt with the challenge of the legal framework of defining
the responsibilities of a new department and what activities would come
under the Department. We brought together under this one Department 22
different Federal agencies, or at least parts of 22 different agencies.
Some, such as the U.S. Coast Guard, were transferred underneath the
jurisdictional responsibility of the Department to help make our effort
more coherent, more effectively and efficiently managed, and to achieve
the goal of making our country safer and more secure for the citizens
who live in the United States. I think we have made great progress.
This bill specifically provides funding of $33.1 billion for the
Department of Homeland Security for this next fiscal year, 2005. This
is the second appropriations bill to fund the Department which began
its operations short of a year and a half ago. The new Department has
made substantial progress to merge the agency functions and the
employees who were transferred under its responsibilities and to
undertake its new duties to better secure and more effectively protect
our great Nation.
We also have seen a new system put in place called the US VISIT
Program to screen visaholders and to stop potential terrorists and
those who may be dangerous, because they have committed crimes in the
past, from entering our country to start with. US VISIT, through
biometrics and other new innovations, has already identified,
apprehended, or arrested more than 400 individuals. Through the science
and technology directorate, the Department has aggressively moved
forward on the successful testing of the first commercial portal
monitors and handheld radiological identifiers to detect the smuggling
of materials which could be used to build weapons of mass destruction.
Federal air marshals have been deployed. State-of-the-art technologies
have been introduced, and cockpit doors have been modified to increase
the safety of air travel.
I know there can be criticism leveled at the efforts of the
Transportation Security Administration which has been the agency
identified with the responsibility for overseeing aviation security and
many other areas of responsibility. But let me remind Senators--and
this is contained in our committee report--I invite the attention of
the Senate to the report, on page 31, where we talk about aviation
security. My good friend, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia,
mentioned people who might bring in bombs or material that can be used
as explosives to blow up planes and otherwise harm us.

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

I suggest that the $4,386,083,000 for aviation security contained in
this bill is designed to meet the needs we have for improved and safer
air travel, working with the airlines who are spending

[[Page S8935]]

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

I am going to close my remarks--and I will be prepared to receive any
suggestions for changes in the bill or amendments or other statements
from Senators--by quoting from something Tom Ridge said with which I
was particularly impressed. Our Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security said:

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, the Senate now has before it the fiscal year 2005
Homeland Security appropriations bill. I commend subcommittee Chairman
Cochran and I commend him highly. I commend his staff for their work on
this important legislation. We had an excellent series of hearings this
year that I believe helped the subcommittee to produce a bill that
contains significant improvements to the President's request.
I also commend the thousands of men and women who are on the front
lines of homeland security. We need to give these men and women the
tools they need to do their jobs in order to support their strong
commitment to serve the Nation every hour of every day of every week of
every month.
On August 1, 2004, Secretary Tom Ridge increased the threat level for
New York, New Jersey, and our Nation's Capital, to Code Orange, a high
risk of terrorist attacks. This is the sixth time since September 11,
2001, that the threat level has been increased to Code Orange.
On July 14, Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin said, ``In the Summer
of 2001, we had ample warning of attack, but we didn't know anything
about specificity: timing, targets, and so forth. But we did have
conviction that something big was coming at us. We have that same
conviction now.''
On July 8, Secretary Tom Ridge and FBI Director Robert Mueller
announced that al-Qaida cells are operating in the United States and
that multiple simultaneous attacks are possible before the November
elections.
In late May, the Attorney General announced that he had credible
intelligence from multiple sources that al-Qaida plans to hit the
United States hard in the next few months.
In the weeks following the Madrid railway bombings, the Washington
Post reported that the President informed the Republican congressional
leadership that he was all but certain that terrorists would attempt a
major attack on the United States before the November elections.
It is past time that we begin debating this legislation as we
approach the 3 year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and as
Congress reviews the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The
Commission concluded that the terrorists who are intent on doing us
harm are so cunning and agile, and sufficiently knowledgeable about
this country that they would schedule their attacks when Congress was
in session. These reports also indicate that on September 11, 2001, our
Government agencies were not prepared to deter or respond to such
attacks. I believe that we are still not prepared.
The bill before the Senate provides $33.1 billion, a level that is
$896 million above the President's request. Regrettably, the allocation
that is available for homeland security programs is inadequate. This is
not a criticism of Chairman Cochran, nor is it a criticism of full
committee Chairman Ted Stevens.
The fact is that limits placed on homeland security funding by the
Bush White House constrain our ability to address known threats to the
safety of the American people.
In response to the danger of terror attacks so often invoked by the
President, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security,
and the FBI Director, it is hard to believe that the President would
not request supplemental appropriations for securing our mass transit
systems, for screening airline passengers for explosives, for
inspecting more containers coming into our ports, for increasing
inspections of air cargo, or for increasing the number of Federal air
marshals. When the threat level was elevated to Code Orange, why did
the President not seek a supplemental? Why does he not amend his fiscal
year 2005 budget request to increase his anemic 2-percent proposed
increase for the Department of Homeland Security? Why in Heaven's name?
Why, indeed, does the Department seem satisfied with a go-slow,
business-as-usual approach to homeland security? The Department issued
advice to mass transit systems for improving security, but provided no
funding to increase law enforcement presence, or to deploy canine
teams. Despite a 6-percent increase in airline flights this year, the
Department has allowed the number of Federal air marshals to shrink
precipitously--by 9 percent--and the President's budget would result in
even deeper reductions next year. Despite concerns about the safety of
our borders, the Department, in March, imposed a hiring freeze on
Customs officers and immigration inspectors. What could possibly drive
such decisions?
Millions of dollars that Congress approved for port security, bus
security, and hazardous materials grants 11 months ago have not been
awarded. Why? Millions of dollars that Congress approved in February of
2003, 18 months ago, for the purchase of additional emergency equipment
for the 28 Urban Search and Rescue teams have not been spent. Why?
Having this money sit in Washington, DC, does not make American
citizens any safer.
As a result of the President's decision not to seek supplemental
appropriations, the Transportation Security Administration was forced
to cut funding for training passenger and baggage screeners and for
purchasing equipment for airport checkpoints by $38

[[Page S8936]]

million. I am one Senator who believes that this administration is
playing with fire.
It has been 2\1/2\ years since Richard Reid, the so-called shoe
bomber, tried to blow up an aircraft in flight over the ocean with
explosives that he carried onto the aircraft. Just 2 weeks ago, two
Russian planes were simultaneously blown out of the sky. Preliminary
investigations indicate that the planes were destroyed by explosives
carried onto the planes by passengers. The 9/11 Commission concluded
that we must give priority attention to screening passengers for
explosives. Are we any closer to deploying a national system that could
check passengers for explosives? The answer is no.

It has been over 2\1/2\ years since the Congress passed the USA
PATRIOT Act and set a goal of tripling the border patrol and customs
officers on the northern border. Have we met the goal? Again, no. We
are 1,428 officers short of the goal.
It has been nearly 3 years since 9/11, when police and firemen in the
World Trade Center could not talk to each other on their radios. As the
9/11 Commission concluded, many first responders failed to get the
order to evacuate the towers, causing hundreds of them to perish. Are
we any closer to providing police and firemen across the nation with
interoperable communications equipment? Sadly, the answer is no.
The EPA has estimated that there are 100 chemical plants in this
country, each of which, if attacked, could harm over 1 million people.
In February of 2003, the National Infrastructure Protection Center,
which is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, issued a
threat warning that al-Qaida may attempt to launch conventional attacks
on nuclear or chemical plants. A year and a half later, has the
Department actually hardened the security of the chemical plants? You
guessed it, no.
I simply do not understand why this administration thinks that
homeland security is not important enough to fund. The President
campaigns on being the best candidate to protect this Nation, yet each
and every budget that he sends to Capitol Hill shortchanges the safety
and security of whom? You guessed it, the American people.
Similarly, I am very concerned that we are about to make the same
mistakes with our Nation's intelligence services.
The 9/11 Commission offered a large number of proposals to change our
intelligence system, each of which needs to be carefully evaluated.
Some may work and some may not, but adopting them all lock, stock, and
barrel without carefully scrutinizing each proposal simply to beat the
political clock is a surefire recipe for disaster. We should not create
sheer chaos and bureaucratic turf battles within the very structure
that is trying to ferret out another attack before it happens.
For instance, last month, the President signed three Executive Orders
to begin implementing the 9/11 Commission reforms. But the Bush
administration has not sent a single budget amendment to the Capitol to
pay for those changes. Where is the money to operate the new National
Counterterrorism Center that the President created by Executive Order?
And if there is no new money, isn't the President just reshuffling the
deck chairs? Is this the same old story being played out?
This is what we have seen with homeland security. There is great
fanfare when the President signs a homeland security authorization
bill. But then the appropriations bills and amendments are rejected by
the Bush White House as ``extraneous spending''--the very amendments
that would keep the promise of the administration's fanfare. When are
we going to break this cycle of false promises to the people of this
Nation?
Our intelligence services have problems that must be addressed. We
have far too few people on the ground in key places on the globe. We
have terribly inadequate intelligence technologies. We do not have
sufficient backup facilities for our one-of-a-kind intelligence assets.
The FBI Director has told every person who would listen about the
critical vulnerabilities that he must address to meet today's threats.
Yet, instead of taking on these tasks which we know must be done, this
government seems all too eager to satisfy itself with shifting boxes
and creating bureaucracies.
In the legislation before the Senate today, we try to break that
cycle. The $896 million increase that is in the Senate bill will help
to address some of the gaps in the President's homeland security
budget. The bill includes $150 million for mass transit security,
none of which was requested by the President. Instead of cutting port
security by 62 percent, as proposed by the President, we are providing
at least a modest increase over last year for port security. We are
providing $98 million more than the President requested for replacing
the Coast Guard ships and planes that are deteriorating at a dangerous
pace. Funds are included to stop the loss of Federal air marshals.
Additional funding is also provided for air cargo security and
explosives-detection equipment and for additional radiation detectors
that can be deployed at our ports.

We continue to fund effective programs that the President wanted to
cut or reorganize, such as the fire grants program and the All Hazards
Emergency Management Performance Grants program.
In addition, the bill contains an important protection for the
privacy rights of Americans. I thank Chairman Cochran for his support
of my amendment in subcommittee concerning CAPPS II, the Department's
proposed new airline passenger profiling system. By restating the
language that was in the 2004 act, this bill allows testing of the
project to move forward, but ensures that the system will not be
deployed until GAO confirms that privacy rights will be protected, that
an appeals process is in place, that the data in the system is
accurate, and that the data is protected from unauthorized use. On July
15, Secretary Ridge announced that CAPPS II, in its current form, would
not be deployed. I am encouraged that he finally got the message that
the Congress has been sending him for over a year about balancing our
need for protection with our rights to privacy. On August 26, the
Department announced a replacement program called Secure Flight, but
details are not yet available. I look forward to hearing the details of
the plan so that we can determine whether the privacy rights of our
citizens are protected.
With the limited funds that were made available to the subcommittee
under our allocation, Chairman Cochran has produced a good bill. And I
commend him for it.
However, this Nation faces a turning point, as we are challenged,
once again, by the threat of attack on our shores. We know that
terrorists live among us. Yet we do not know where they will strike, we
do not know when they will strike. We do not know. What we have are
warnings from the Attorney General, from the FBI Director, and even
from the President that al-Qaida is planning an attack here within our
shores. Are we prepared to prevent such an attack? Are we prepared to
respond to such an attack? Look at the funding levels and decide.
The bill that is before the Senate contains an increase of about 5
percent above the fiscal year 2004 level. The President is certain that
America is going to be attacked again soon, yet the Senate is debating
a bill that provides for a 5-percent increase. If an attack occurs, it
will be on the head of this White House to explain why they pinched
pennies with homeland security.
Congress has a responsibility to protect the Nation. So does the
President. The country's serious vulnerabilities demand that we invest
dollars where they are most needed.
That is why I intend to offer an amendment to this bill to target
increased funding to those programs that have the most impact on well-
documented vulnerabilities, such as rail security, port security,
chemical security, fire and other first-responder programs, and border
protection.
Mr. President, more than 95 percent of the Nation's overseas cargo
moves through our ports. The U.S. Coast Guard estimates that a one-
month closure of a major U.S. port would cost our national economy $60
billion. We inspect only 9 percent of the cargo containers that come
into our seaports. The 9/11 Commission concluded that we must do
better, and I agree. In order to

[[Page S8937]]

help secure those ports, the Coast Guard estimates that $1.1 billion is
required to implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act in the
first year, and $5.4 billion over 10 years. Yet the President requested
only $46 million for port security grants, and this bill only provides
$150 million. We need to do more.
On March 11 of this year, terrorists attacked commuter trains in
Madrid, Spain, killing nearly 200 innocent passengers. The President
has not requested a dime for mass transit security. We should be
investing in additional guards, better training, additional canine
teams and better surveillance. Chairman Cochran has initiated a $150
million program for mass transit security, but the Senate Banking
Committee has reported a bill authorizing over $3.5 billion for fiscal
year 2005 for mass transit security and the Senate Commerce Committee
has reported a bill authorizing $1.2 billion for rail and Amtrak
security. Americans use public transportation over 32 million times per
workday. We need to do more.

The Hart-Rudman report on the terrorist threat in this country
recommended a $98 billion investment in equipping and training for our
first responders over the next 5 years. Yet, this bill cuts first-
responder funding below the levels enacted last year. The committee
report calls on the Department to finally issue Federal guidelines to
assist State and local governments in making wise purchases with first
responder funding, but guidelines are not a substitute for money. The
bill would reduce first-responder funding by $778 million from the
fiscal year 2004 level, including cuts in the fire grant program. That
is not acceptable.
This is a good bill but it simply does not do enough. My amendment,
which I shall offer, will not simply throw money at homeland security.
It will address specific, known vulnerabilities. It will fund a number
of the security weaknesses identified by the 9/11 Commission.
Last week, the President said:

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

Whatever it takes? Well, Mr. President, it takes more than empty
promises to protect this country from attack. If President Bush meant
what he said last week, he would not accept a bill that cuts funds for
first responders, that leaves first responders unable to communicate,
that leaves airline passengers worrying about whether a fellow
passenger has the means whereby to destroy the plane, whether a
passenger has brought explosives on board, or that fails to adequately
invest in securing our ports, our chemical facilities, and our trains.
Again, I commend Chairman Cochran for his work on this important
legislation. He conducted hearings. He conducted fair hearings. I
encourage Members to bring their amendments to the floor so that they
can be considered and so that we can bring this bill to final passage
and go to conference. We need to get a good freestanding bill to the
President's desk. We have waited far, far too long.
Mr. President, I ask the Senate to support this bill.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we are considering a must-pass
piece of legislation, the Homeland Security bill. Because of that, it
is an appropriate vehicle to amend to pass other must-pass
appropriations. The appropriation I am speaking of is hurricane relief
for the battered State of Florida and, in some cases, parts of Georgia,
as well, but particularly the State of Florida because of not only one
hurricane but two hurricanes. Hopefully, the good Lord is not going to
make it three hurricanes.
Hurricane Ivan is on a track, as of the latest advisory from 11 this
morning from the National Hurricane Center, to come across Jamaica, up
over the western side of Cuba and into the Gulf of Mexico, which is
almost the identical track Hurricane Charley took 4 weeks ago.
Let us hope if it continues on that track that it continues on into
the Gulf and does not take a right turn, which is what Hurricane
Charley did, hitting the coast of Florida at Ground Zero, which was
Punta Gorda, FL, with winds of 145 miles an hour coming straight off of
the Gulf of Mexico and right up Charlotte Harbor.
We cannot do anything about that because that is the forces of Mother
Nature, but what we can do is respond as a Federal Government in times
of natural disaster emergency.
We started that process last night when we passed a $2 billion
supplemental appropriation. That is not nearly enough for the first
hurricane, let alone the second hurricane. The $2 billion appropriation
was a figure the President requested, which is the ordinary procedure.
Senator Graham of Florida and I had first ballparked only the FEMA
portion at $2.5 billion and requested that of the President. The
President chose a $2 billion figure and it is our normal custom, in
times of national emergency, to go with the President's request. So
with bipartisan unanimous support, we passed a $2 billion appropriation
last night. That was quite timely because FEMA's coffers were running
dry today.
Four weeks ago, FEMA had only $837 million in its emergency disaster
relief fund. As of Monday, when I met with the FEMA director and his
regional director who is now in place in a headquarters in Florida,
they were down to less than $100 million and they were not able to pay
bills and order supplies because they were fast running out of money.
Thanks to the majority leader and minority leader and the leadership of
the various committees of this body, the Senate passed what had been
sent over from the House and $2 billion has now replenished the
emergency disaster relief fund.

That is going to be used pretty quickly. That was only for FEMA. That
does not say anything about the $500 million we are estimating through
the Department of Agriculture in crop losses and all of the assistance
from the Department of Agriculture not only for crop losses but for
damage to equipment and buildings. Of course, that does not say
anything about assistance to the Department of Transportation, where
there was significant damage to airports in Florida, including the
Orlando International Airport that got hit not once but twice.
That does not even say anything about a lot of that assistance that
comes through the Small Business Administration, which is not only
assistance for businesses but assistance to individuals, as well as
low-interest loans to help people get back on their feet. That does not
say anything about assisting the American Red Cross, which has been
down there not once but twice now in helping people who are walking
around in a daze with no power, with a home that has been completely
destroyed.
So in times of natural disaster, the costs begin to mount up. I will
give a means of comparison. Twelve years ago in the monster hurricane,
Hurricane Andrew, that savaged south Florida, it was a hurricane that
went over a relatively unpopulated part of the State, south Miami,
south Dade County, the city of Homestead, but then it exited over the
Everglades, an unpopulated part of Florida. Yet, 12 years ago, the cost
of that hurricane to the Federal Government, just for FEMA, was $2.9
billion. The total cost to the Federal Government, including all of
these other agencies, some of which I have mentioned, was over $6
billion, some $6.3 billion.
We are now dealing with not one hurricane, which was not as
destructive as Hurricane Andrew for comparison, but now we are dealing
with the second hurricane.
Now I will speak about this second hurricane, Hurricane Frances. By
the time it hit the shore at Fort Pierce, its winds were down to 105
miles an hour. There were gusts of up to 120 miles an hour and those
gusts were recorded at the Cape, what we refer to as the Cape,

[[Page S8938]]

Cape Canaveral, the Cape Canaveral Air Force station at the Kennedy
Space Center. That center sustained considerable damage. The big
vehicle assembly building, which used to be the largest building in
volume in the world when it was constructed in the 1960s, used today to
stack the space shuttle vertically to all of its component parts, was
ravaged to the point of losing 1,000 panels, each panel being 10 feet
by 4 feet, a total of over 50,000 square feet that is now open into the
building.
I do not need to paint the picture of the disaster that could occur
if this third hurricane were to come and hit the Kennedy Space Center,
with the thousand huge, open windows allowing the forces of Mother
Nature to go inside the vehicle assembly building. That could set back
the American space program considerably if there were significant
damage.
I had a little prayer session in the Commerce Committee with the
administrator of NASA today about what we are going to do about this
and how NASA itself has got to be a part of this emergency
appropriation, as the Department of Defense was 12 years ago when
Hurricane Andrew did so much damage to Homestead Air Force Base. So,
too, we have this problem at the Space Center. By the way, it is not
only the vehicle assembly building.
There is no excuse for why the building that manufactures the
delicate silicon tiles that go on the underbelly of the Space Shuttle
Orbiter was ripped apart when these winds came across the Cape. My
colleagues should see pictures of it. Our ability to produce the
thermal protection system for the space shuttle was savaged by these
winds. There is no excuse for not having a building that is constructed
to withstand hurricane force winds, and I have asked NASA to answer to
that. The fact is, it has happened and it is going to have to be
repaired, as is the roof of the building that handles the central
computers that has now been ripped off. What I am saying is there are
going to be a lot of costs because Mother Nature has dealt us a very
savage blow.
The gentleman handling this legislation is the distinguished Senator
from Mississippi, who is also an expert in agricultural appropriations.
I am sure the Senator has already gotten the reports that the first
hurricane savaged the citrus crop 100 percent. Even more, because the
young trees that snapped, that were loaded down with fruit, by the way,
now have to be pruned back. So the loss of the orange crop is not just
this year, 100 percent of the crop, but that loss will be sustained
over several years as those pruned-back orange trees will take years to
grow back. So that is the agricultural loss.
If that were not enough--let me call this to the attention of the
chairman of the Agricultural Subcommittee of the Appropriations
Committee. If that were not enough, here comes the second hurricane,
and it ravages another part of the citrus growing region in Florida
called the Indian River citrus region, where the delicacy fresh
grapefruit is grown. There is no telling, I have not gotten the
estimates of what happened, but if it is like the first one, even those
grapefruits still on the tree, with the root rot going on with the
floods, it is likely it is a 100 percent loss as well.
We can see the extraordinary destructive force of nature that has hit
us. Lord forbid a third one, Ivan, comes to our State. We don't wish it
to go to anybody's State.
Floridians are tired; they are stressed; they are hot; their patience
is wearing thin. Yet they have been very appreciative of the response.
One of the lessons that we learned from Hurricane Andrew was that it
was total chaos afterward. One level of government was not talking to
another level. That has been changed. There is communication and
cooperation efficiently going on between all levels of government.
However, when you get hit not once but twice, with the possibility of a
third time, then the human endurance and the ability to respond to
natural disaster begins to have a finite limit.
If there is one reason for the Federal Government to exist, it is to
help its people in times of disaster. I will later on be offering some
amendments to this bill. Most of what I have proposed here I would
prefer that we strip off this bill and we handle it as a freestanding
bill so it doesn't get mired in all of this. But I am only going on the
instructions that the majority leader has given me, which is that we
passed the $2 billion last night and he wanted to--and it was his
words, many times over--attach it to the Homeland Security bill. So we
can discuss what is the appropriate venue.
I yield to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to compliment the distinguished Senator for
his description of the damages in Florida. We are all keenly aware,
because the of the images on television, and the description in the
newspapers, conversations with friends and family members in that
State, how terrible those storms have been and the devastation that has
been caused.
One thing that reminds me of the history of my own State is the
terrible force of the wave action. I can remember when Hurricane
Camille struck the Mississippi Gulf Coast in, I think, 1969, that storm
did more damage than any other hurricane that had ever hit that part of
the gulf of Mexico. I recall going down to the gulf of Mexico and
visiting that area, seeing how devastating the damage was and how long
it took to recover from it. As a matter of fact there are still scars.
There is one shrimp boat about 2 blocks inland now that is sitting
there as a reminder of the force of that hurricane.
The fact of the matter is, and the Senator is correct, the $2 billion
the Congress has approved for a supplemental appropriation for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency is targeted just to the Disaster
Relief Fund. This is, as the Senator knows, to provide emergency
assistance of food, shelter, debris cleanup--taking care of the
emergency situation that exists. That fund was going to be exhausted
this morning when the President signed the bill appropriating this
additional money. So, with this funding, that account is taken care of.
As the Senator indicates, there is a lot of other damage that is
outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies may have
responsibilities and they may not have sufficient funds to meet all the
needs for which some people are entitled to reimbursement or some kind
of disaster relief under Federal law. For that reason the President
indicated in his request to Congress which he submitted on September
6--and I'll read this. He said:

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

What we get from that is the President is submitting and, we have
been advised by the President's staff, that in the coming days there
will be another supplemental appropriations bill requested by the
President. It will not be the bill that we are considering today,
though. This is the annual appropriations bill that funds the entire
Department of Homeland Security, Coast Guard, the Secret Service--the
22 various agencies that are combined within the ambit of the
Department of Homeland Security.
I suggest to the Senator we would welcome any suggestions he has for
inclusions in the additional supplemental that will be before the
Congress soon, at the request of the President.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for his comments. It would
be this Senator's preference that we have an emergency supplemental
just for the hurricane damage, including all of these agencies as well
as--I didn't even mention the Army Corps of Engineers. We had severe
beach erosion; in some cases, beaches disappearing. I just mentioned,
for example, citrus, but we are talking about huge losses in nurseries,
in vegetables, in cattle, hogs, the oyster/clam industry, timber--just
to mention a few. It would be this Senator's preference clearly to have
a stand alone supplemental. However it was Senator Frist, the majority
leader, who called me saying he wanted to use this vehicle, the
Department of Homeland Security, to which to attach those

[[Page S8939]]

additional emergency supplemental requests.
If there is a change in that, and I get assurance that in fact this
other legislation will move because of the necessity of it--I remind
you the $2 billion last night was just FEMA for the first hurricane,
Charlie. That doesn't address all these other agencies and it doesn't
address FEMA for the second hurricane, Hurricane Frances.

I will certainly work with the Senator. But I am one way or another
going to make sure we have this appropriations request before the
Senate under the emergency conditions that we find ourselves facing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Schumer is here. He has a very
important amendment to offer. I think we could probably agree on a time
for debate. We of course will ask the majority what time we want to
vote. But I gather the Senator from New York would be in agreement to a
time limit on his amendment.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague from Nevada. I would be happy to
set a time limit and then have a vote on the amendment.
Mr. REID. Could the Senator give us an idea about how much time it
might take? Senator Cochran usually likes to work under time
agreements. Could we have a general idea?
Mr. SCHUMER. That is fine with me. Maybe we could have a few minutes
for the majority and a few minutes for the minority.
Mr. REID. We have a general idea about how much time it would take.
If we could have a vote sometime before 5 o'clock?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, before we start agreeing on times for
votes, that is above my pay grade. We have a distinguished majority
leader, and we will have to consult with him and other Senators.
Mr. REID. I did mention that, but to give Members an idea of when
there might be a vote, Senator Schumer is ready to offer his amendment.
Mr. COCHRAN. It depends on what his amendment is. We may all rejoice
and vote for it. Who knows? Again, we may not.
Mr. SCHUMER. If my colleague will yield, I can assure him it is a
good one.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be offering an
amendment on nuclear security in a few minutes. But first I would in
general address this bill.
Let me first say at the outset I am glad we are doing this bill now.
As you know, many of us on this side of the aisle asked that this bill
come up much sooner. But to do it right here as our first order of
business when we return from the summer break after the two conventions
I think is very good. I am glad we are on this bill.
The second point I would make is this: I don't think anyone on this
side--certainly not the senior Senator from New York--wants to obstruct
or not have this bill pass. We want it to move forward. So there is no
intention to delay. As my good friend from Mississippi has seen by my
asking for a short period to debate this amendment, having spent 18
years in the House of Representatives, 45 minutes is a lifetime there,
but here in the Senate it is a relatively short amount of time. There
is no intention for dilatory tactics or anything of that sort.
I believe, being head of our Democratic Task Force on Homeland
Security, and having talked to many of my colleagues about further
amendments, my friend, our chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland
Security Appropriations, will find similarly short time limits are
being called for. That is all the good news. The bad news is many of us
think this amendment being brought before us is woefully inadequate. I
would like to discuss that in general.
I have been quite hawkish on the war on terrorism, having supported
the President's request to go into Iraq. I supported the $87 billion
and I believe we need a strong and muscular foreign policy overseas.
Mistakes are often made. We should do a lot better in terms of those
mistakes. But inaction is perhaps the greatest mistake of all.

I am for fighting a vigorous war on terror overseas. I believe what
our President said--former President Bill Clinton--is exactly right. To
have strength and intelligence--that is exactly what he said, something
to that effect--are not mutually exclusive categories when fighting a
war on terror. If we are fighting a strong war on terror overseas, we
are certainly not doing it here at home.
If I had to choose perhaps the greatest weakness of this
administration in its war on terror, it would be the inadequacy of what
we are doing here at home. The bottom line is this: We get a lot of
rhetoric. We don't get the focus, the thoughtfulness, or the resources,
the dollars to do what we need to do. Sure, if you think this is a 20-
year plan, maybe we are doing enough. But we sure don't think it is a
20-year plan when we go overseas, nor should we. It is not a 20-year
plan here.
Let me say this. This is my own view. We have a window in this global
war on terror. In other words, my view is that this war on terrorism we
face can be described in a single sentence; that is, the very
technology which has blessed our lives and accounted for so much of the
prosperity we have seen over the last two decades here at home has an
evil underside, and that is that small groups of bad people can get
hold of that technology and use it for terrible purposes. You can be in
a cave in Afghanistan, and as long as you have a wireless connection to
the Internet you can learn as much about America as any of us knows. If
you took 500 random people anywhere on the globe from the most highly
intelligent and well-read and studied to maybe the guy who sweeps the
floors at night and injected them all with an evil virus so that they
all decide to spend the next 5 years figuring out how to do terrible
damage to the United States and then implement it, the odds are too
high they can succeed.
This is not simply a war against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida is the first
group who learned how to use this technology to cause the terrible
events in the city from which I hail and which I so love. Al-Qaida is
on the run. We have not done enough maybe in Afghanistan and Pakistan,
but clearly al-Qaida is weaker today than it was then. But it is only a
matter of time before new groups--maybe the Chechens, maybe the East
Timorese, maybe even the skinheads in western Montana--figure out they
can use this technology and do terrible damage. So we have a window. It
may be 2 years, it may be 4 years, it may be 6 years, but it sure as
heck ain't 10 or 20 where we can tighten up our defenses, because even
though we have to fight the war on terror overseas we also have to
prepare a defense at home.
If 500 people can do such terrible things, the odds we will be able
to catch all of them before any of them implement the first strike
against us is rather small.
Like anyone who follows sports knows, to win a game you need a good
defense and a good offense. Whether you agree with this administration
or disagree, you can't take away that they are focused on that offense.
When it comes to defense, they are not home. They would be ranked as
one of the worst defenses around. I have tried to figure out why this
is, why we are doing so little on homeland security at home; why when
it comes to our ports or our trucks or our rails or our borders, we are
making such slow and halting progress, almost grudging progress, if you
will.
I am not a person inside the brain of the President or his chief
advisers, but having talked to people who have worked there and left--
some of them in disgust--I can tell you that part of it is a lack of
desire to spend the dollars necessary. Spend whatever it takes
overseas, fine; spend whatever it takes here to make us secure, the
money is not there.
There is also the mistrust of Government, a sort of antigovernment
view that Government is not a good thing, that Government is not going
to do it right, that Government should be the place of last resort.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the war on terror, it is only the
Government that can do it, whether it be overseas or here at home.
But as a result, this administration, in my judgment, whatever grade
you give them in fighting the war overseas, would get a D or an F in
most areas in terms of fighting the war here at home.
Let me give some general places where we are not close to doing

[[Page S8940]]

enough. Regarding the air, we have done a good job making sure another
September 11 does not happen specifically in the way it did; in other
words, simply bolting the cockpits of all our planes greatly cuts down
the average of a plane being hijacked. Putting air marshals on the
planes makes a great deal of sense. We have made progress inspecting
baggage and luggage. In fact, I think the TSA has done a good job and
is an example that Government can do a good job. They are doing better
than the private sector did when they were hiring people at minimum
wage who hardly spoke English. However, even in the air we are
vulnerable to terrorists using shoulder-held missiles and taking down
our planes. We can stop that.
There will be an amendment offered here either by me or by somebody
else that will push us to do more, much more quickly. Are we doing
nothing in these areas? Absolutely not. We are doing a little bit.
Again, if you believe that we can take 20 years to tighten our defenses
before, God forbid, terrorists strike again, that is fine. If you
believe we have a window that may be 3 or 4 or 5 years, it is a
dereliction of duty. It is a dereliction of responsibility, the same as
not protecting our troops overseas.
Take the rails. We learned in Madrid that terrorists may want to hurt
people by blowing up trains and railway stations. The best way they do
that, the most efficacious way, is by using regular explosives. We have
the technology to develop devices that can be like smoke detectors.
They can be put on every railroad car, in every railway or subway
station. If someone walks in with nitrates, they will be detected. We
do this, of course, on airplanes. We have sniffing devices which are
now used in a few airplanes. I went through one of the devices in
Rochester. It works well. That does not work for crowded trains and
commuter rails and subways. We can increase the technology and it can
be like a smoke detector. Place it on the ceiling, and it goes off if
somebody carries explosives, thereby thwarting a blowing up of a train
or a railroad station. We are not doing that.
Nor are we protecting the egress and ingress at most of our train
stations in case, God forbid, something blows up. Penn Station, the
busiest rail station in the country, still has tunnels a mile and a
half long without ventilation and without escape routes. Two or three
years ago we allocated $500 million to improve that. Only $100 million
has been spent.
My colleague from California, Senator Boxer, will have an amendment
on rail security that will address some of these concerns. She and I
will be talking about that.
What about the ports? We are still only inspecting, at best, 5
percent of all incoming containers. I was speaking to a few people who
run the container operations in parts of New York. They say it is more
like 1 percent that we are inspecting. Who knows what is in the
containers? Shoulder-held missiles, nuclear weapons, terrorists
themselves. They caught someone actually in a container trying to
smuggle himself into Toronto. We do not inspect these containers.
Almost anything can be in them. Again, the technology is there to do
more, quicker, and better inspections, to detect explosives or
biological or radiological compounds and to put a lock on the container
so it cannot be opened again and something be placed in it. My
colleague from Washington will be offering an amendment on port
security.

How about trucks? We have learned al-Qaida is now using truck bombs
as a weapon of choice. This is what our intelligence picked up when we
had the last scare that said something might occur during the political
season, either at the conventions--which, thank God, it didn't--or
maybe closer to the political season. There were indications that truck
bombs might be used. There are things that can be done, things that are
technologically available and feasible to deal with truck bombs. We
can, for instance, require any truck that carries hazardous material
have a GPS system so we know exactly where they are going. If they go
off course, we will know. If they are stolen, we will know. A truck was
stolen in Pennshauken, NJ, my neighboring state, that contained
hazardous material. It is missing. It has been missing for 3 months.
Who knows who has it. The odds are it was robbery, but it is always
possible someone for far more evil purpose was stealing that truck.
In Brazil, a country hardly as technologically advanced as we, every
truck has a GPS system. When they go off course, it cuts off so the
truck cannot run any further if they are worried. Brazilian truck
companies did this to prevent theft. Why aren't we requiring it here?
The cost is minimal. Put a GPS system in your new Cadillac, it costs a
couple hundred bucks more. We can do the same thing for trucks.
We can have some controls on how ammonium nitrate is sold, which is
used in truck bombs. We cannot stop it or limit it; our farmers need
it. But certainly when someone buys a lot we could require they
identify themselves and call an 800 number to make sure they are not on
a terrorist watch list or a previously convicted felon.
We can put taggants in the explosions. With nanotechnology, the
marking devices are very tiny and do not interfere with either the cost
or the effectiveness of the explosive. That way, we can find out who
tried to buy certain materials. It serves as a deterrent, as well. We
are doing virtually none of that.
By the way, there will be an amendment on truck security.
Are our chemical plants secure? Absolutely not. My colleague from New
Jersey, Senator Corzine, has been the leader on this issue. His State
is one of the leading chemical producing States in the country. A
terrorist can easily scout out a chemical plant and make plans to blow
it up, creating huge damage. All these areas are not areas where we do
not know what to do. We know what to do. They are not areas where the
technology is not yet able to be developed. It is able to be developed.
I have talked to experts in all of these areas until I am blue in the
face. We do not have the urgency coming from this administration when,
time and time and time again the Senator from West Virginia, who has
been such a leader on this issue, Senator Byrd, or any who have been
focused on this area, have brought amendments to the Senate to provide
the dollars to make these things feasible, we have been told we do not
have enough money.
I ask, would most Americans rather see these things being done and
have maybe half a percent less cut on the top tax rate? In other words,
say we go, instead of from 39 to 35.5 percent, that would give us
enough money to do all of these things. This is not a political choice.
This is hardly pork. This is protecting our homeland every bit as much
as providing our soldiers overseas with the weaponry, the backup, that
they need. Yet no one is home. There is some rhetoric, but every time
the dollars aren't there, there is not the focus, there is not the
alarm, the sense of urgency some Members feel.
As we debate this bill, many Members will offer a series of
amendments on each of the areas I have talked about and then some
others.
These amendments are not intended for any political purpose. They are
intended out of a sense of urgency, out of a sense of anxiety, out of a
sense of even anguish that we are just not doing enough. I will be here
making sure we vote on every one of these amendments. It will probably
take us a day to debate them all, a full day, and if others say we do
not have that kind of time, I would argue we do. If the majority leader
thinks we have to work late to consider these amendments, so be it. But
we are just not doing the job.
One final issue which I will be bringing up is our first responders.
Our hospitals, our police departments, our fire departments--Senator
Mikulski will have an amendment on the fire grants--are stretched. They
have done a great job in their respective areas. Our police do a great
job on the war on crime. Our fire departments keep us safe. Our
hospitals are more and more advanced. But each of them has been asked
to do special things since 9/11. Each of them has new burdens placed
upon them and we are not giving them the dollars they need to do it.
Now, you may say, well, let the localities pay for it. But the
hospitals in the localities are not paying. With Medicare and Medicaid
reimbursements what they are, with the HMOs being more and more
efficient, they do not have the money on their own. So if we do not do
it, no one will.

[[Page S8941]]

With police and fire, it is not much different. We all know how our
localities' budgets are strapped. We all know that the property taxes
are a huge burden on people. To ask them to raise the property tax
burden to do this means it either will not be done or will not be done
in the full way that it should. Yet we are not helping our first
responders: our police, our firefighters, our hospitals.
So there will be another amendment, I neglected to mention, which I
will offer to increase funding overall for first responders. Senator
Mikulski will have an amendment on the fire grants. But the bottom line
is this: There is, as I said, a dereliction of duty, a dereliction of
responsibility on homeland security. This administration almost has a
disconnect. Dollars do not matter when it comes to fighting the war
overseas, when it comes to defending our soldiers. Dollars cannot
because their lives are precious. But dollars almost are the end-all
and be-all when it comes to homeland security, and we do not do close
to what we should be doing.
So in terms of my general remarks, I look forward to debating this
bill. I hope some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will
join us in supporting these amendments.
The bottom line is very simple: No one knows how the war on terror is
going to twist and turn over the next generation. That is why I tend to
like proactive policies both abroad and at home. But no one is a
genius. There are a few geniuses, but not enough of them. No one can
foresee the future, so we do not know what is in store for us. We
certainly want to cut down the odds of a terrible, terrible incident
occurring again the way one did on 9/11 in my city.
I wear this flag in memory of those who we lost. I put it on
September 12, and I wear this very flag every day. I knew some of the
people. I was friends with a firefighter who died, a guy who I played
basketball with in school who died, a businessman who helped me as I
was on my way up politically. So it is sort of personal. But the
anguish I feel is maybe one-tenth the anguish, one-one-hundredth the
anguish, one-one-thousandth the anguish of the families who live with
this every day. But they would want us to do everything we can, and we
are not.

It is my hope this debate will, at the very least, elucidate places
where we are not doing what we should, and maybe even provide the kind
of dollars, resources, and focus that have been so sorely lacking thus
far.

Amendment No. 3580

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

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

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

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

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment deals with, to me at
least, the greatest nightmare that--how much time does our side have,
Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no pending order for time.
Mr. SCHUMER. Oh, we did not have a time agreement? Thank you, Mr.
President. I only intend to take another 10 to 15 minutes on my own,
and then maybe if my colleague from Mississippi speaks in favor of the
amendment I will not even speak further. But if he speaks against it, I
will try to answer what he has to say.
Mr. President, if you think of all the terrible things that
terrorists could do to us--and there are so many you almost run out of
mental space thinking about them--perhaps the worst that I can imagine
is that a nuclear weapon, and I am not talking about a dirty bomb,
which would be bad enough, but a real nuclear weapon would be smuggled
into this country and exploded anywhere in the country, but
particularly in one of our large cities.
The damage would be unimaginable. It is guessed if it were even a 10-
kiloton device--smaller than the devices that were exploded in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki--that over 100,000 people would die immediately,
hundreds of thousands more in the next month, and then perhaps even
millions over the years from the radiation. The economic loss would be
incredible, not just in the city where it was exploded but wherever the
wind currents blew in terms of where the radiation blew. It would
probably, in many ways, change the way of life that we cherish for
every American, no matter in what part of the country you lived.
So it seems to me we should be doing everything we can to prevent a
nuclear weapon from being exploded here. Part of that, of course, is to
try to buy up the nuclear weapons we know parts of the former Soviet
Union have had and a few other countries have had. We should be funding
Nunn-Lugar. But the amendment does not go to that. The other is to
prevent them from being smuggled in.
There is good news and bad news about nuclear material. The good news
is, in terms of detection, every one of them emits something called
gamma rays which can be seen and detected through metal, through
anything but lead. Lead is very heavy, so it is hard to detect a device
totally surrounded by lead. And then you can detect lead anyway.
The bad news is, right now the detection devices we have are not very
proficient. They still have to detect the nuclear material at
relatively close range. A Geiger counter needs 3 feet. Some of the
other ones that have been developed need a little bit more space.
They are not foolproof, to say the least. I have talked to scientists
in my State at Brookhaven National Laboratory and to scientists in many
other States, and devices could be developed that, No. 1, detect any
kind of nuclear materials from 70 or 80 feet away and detect them in a
far more foolproof way than the present devices.
Now, the only way a nuclear device can be smuggled into this country
very easily--the only remaining way--is in large containers that come
into our ports by the tens of thousands every day or in a truck that
goes over the Mexican or Canadian border.
It is very easy to imagine that we could place these detection
devices on every crane that loads a container coming to our country.
You may say: Well, there are thousands of cranes all over the world.
That is true, but already we only allow containers to come into this
country that are loaded from 15 ports. I do not have the list of them,
but it is Antwerp, Singapore, places such as that. You do not want to
detect them here because then they could be exploded while the ship
approaches our shores and is not yet here. It could be placed on every
toll booth. We would basically prevent any nuclear weapon from being
smuggled into the country.

[[Page S8942]]

But the devices that really work well and can detect radiation far
enough away and do it well and sensitively are not yet developed.

Scientists say that with a couple of years of research they can do
it. They right now detect small amounts of nuclear material in
cyclotrons and atom smashers at a great distance, but those devices are
too large and delicate. They can't be bounced around very much to work.
All it takes is spending some dollars, maybe $150 million, maybe $250
million--it sounds like a lot, but it is not in terms of the $1.7
trillion budget--and then installing them in the ways that I have
stated.
I have tried for 3 years to get this body to do it. A few years ago
we accepted an amendment that would have at least put in $150 million
for these devices. But when it came back from conference, only $35
million was left. Guess what. That was in the 2003 budget. They still
haven't spent it. Is that amazing? It is $35 million to start on this
research, and Homeland Security still has not let the contracts.
What is going on here? This is a huge catastrophe that could, God
forbid, happen, and we are just asleep at the switch.
This amendment seeks to rectify that. This amendment will provide all
of the necessary funding to develop the devices and then install them
in places we need them. My guess is the whole process would take 2 to 3
years, if we really put the energy and the muscle into it. It is true
that there are a few places where we are doing this with rudimentary,
more primitive types of detection devices. Yes, one of them is in my
harbor, Howland Hook on Staten Island. I have visited. I see how it
works. It is better than nothing. But it isn't close to good enough.
That is one container port, and there are 40 or 50 in New York alone.
We all know the terrorists have access to the Internet, and they know
exactly where nuclear devices are being detected, the few ports that
they are, and the huge number where they are not. They also know that
the detection devices could be a lot bigger.
What we really want to do is develop a super Geiger counter, one that
can detect nuclear materials from a distance and one that is more
accurate. Again, you put it on every crane that loads a container bound
for the U.S., on every toll booth that has a truck that will go into
the U.S., you have dramatically reduced the odds of this type of
catastrophe occurring.
Is there anyone who doesn't believe we should do that? Is there
anyone who thinks the funding we are asking here, which is an
additional $150 million, isn't worth the cost? Yet my guess is that
when we have this rollcall vote in a short while, people will just
march up to the podium and vote no, and there is no good answer.
I hope my colleagues will not do that. One hundred fifty million
dollars is not going to break this bank. It is quite broken already. It
is not going to break it much further, and it will do a world of good.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I hope, if we are
going to support the amendment, that we will see it through in
conference and not do what happened a couple of years ago where it was
knocked out in conference and a much smaller amount of money was
provided for and then that money was not spent.
I am ready to sit down. I know my colleague from Mississippi wants to
move the bill forward. I do not disagree with that. I think the
argument is pretty clear and pretty succinct. I hope we will be off to
a good start on this bill by supporting this amendment and by not
ignoring homeland security, particularly a catastrophe that could occur
if a nuclear weapon were smuggled into this country.

Amendment No. 3580, As Modified

Mr. President, I have a modification of my amendment at the desk, and
I ask unanimous consent that it be so modified. It is just changing one
number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator has that right. The
amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 19, strike ``$2,845,081,000'' and all that follows
through ``grants;'' on page 20, line 11, and insert the
following: ``$2,995,081,000, which shall be allocated as
follows:
``(1) $970,000,000 for formula-based grants and
$400,000,000 for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants
pursuant to section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT ACT (42 U.S.C.
3714): Provided, That the application for grants shall be
made available to states within 45 days after enactment of
this Act; that States shall submit applications within 45
days after the grant announcement; and that the Office of
State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness
shall act within 15 days after receipt of an application:
Provided further, That each State shall obligate not less
than 80 percent of the total amount of the grant to local
governments within 60 days after the grant award; and
``(2) $1,350,000,000 for discretionary grants for use in
high-threat, high-density urban areas, as determined by the
Secretary of Homeland Security: Provided, That $300,000,000
shall be for port security grants;''.

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

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

The Department is focused on the importance that we all believe
should be paid to this area of interest and concern. We know that
existing technologies are being deployed by agencies at ports of entry,
including the U.S. Coast Guard and the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection. They provide an effective nuclear countermeasure system,
but continued focused development can considerably extend these
capabilities in order to develop technologies for application to
specific locations, including those in the intermodal transportation
system, in the maritime domain, at border ports of entry, and in the
aviation industry.
Specifically, the committee included in this section of the bill to
which this amendment is directed great latitude in approving grants
that can be the subject of applications from not only States but local
jurisdictions such as port security areas.
Of the total provided by the committee for urban area security
initiative grants, $150 million is for port security grants; $150
million is included for rail and transit security grants; $10 million
is available for inner city bus security grants for the improvement of
ticket identification, the installation of driver shields, the
enhancement of emergency communications, and further implementation of
passenger screening; $15 million is also included for trucking industry
security grants to continue the Highway Watch Grant Program.
This committee had the responsibility of trying to help ensure that
across the broad range of urban area security concerns funds were
available for grants to local areas and to States to deal with these
new challenges.
The committee believes the Department's practice over the past 2
years to allocate appropriated funds could be improved. We suggested,
for example, that they all not be made available

[[Page S8943]]

early in the fiscal year but to leave some opportunities for later
grantmaking authority so that if any new discoveries or intelligence of
recent terrorist threat information became available, these funds could
be targeted to higher risk areas and where we would get more for our
money.
It is easy to offer an amendment to double an appropriation, and that
is what this amendment does. We have $150 million in the bill for this
one particular grant program within the broad urban area security
initiative grants. What the Senator from New York is doing is asking
that be doubled.
You can just about go through this bill, I suggest, and find every
incremental amount that is in this bill and pick out one and offer an
amendment to double it and make a good persuasive case why it would be
better off if we could spend twice as much money as we have allocated
for that one activity. That is a pretty easy argument to make. But it
is also a cheap shot, and the reason I am calling it a cheap shot is
that we have within this Urban Area Security Grant Program $1.2 billion
for discretionary grants to high-threat urban areas. The Secretary has
to make these decisions on the basis of the applications and the
proposals that are submitted to the Department.
If we in the Congress are going to go back through the bill and try
to second-guess every one of these accounts and double it and ask for a
vote, you could easily double the whole cost of the bill. We have a
$33.1 billion bill. It probably would be harder to get a vote to double
that to $66 billion, but you could make some arguments why we could
spend that amount of money. But could we spend it in a thoughtful way
that would efficiently and responsibly use the taxpayers' dollars in
this area of concern, homeland security?
We have had 2 years of experience in writing this bill. Last year, we
ended up having to make points of order on the basis of the fact that
some of the amendments were in excess of the allocation that was given
to this subcommittee.
I understand the full committee has been meeting this afternoon
during the last hour to review the amount of funding that would be
available to each subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
And I understand soon, if it has not already been done, there will be
filed with the Senate this allocation, and this subcommittee will have
a limited amount of money to use in writing this bill.
I am not suggesting we have gotten the cart before the horse, but I
am suggesting that before we vote on this amendment, I want to be sure
I know what the allocation amount is for this subcommittee. It is not
just targeted to the amendment of the distinguished Senator from New
York that I do this, but any amendment that would come in and double an
amount without any more justification than it would be good if we could
spend twice as much as we are spending. And that is really the
argument.
Sure, it would be good if we could spend twice as much as we are
spending in a lot of areas, but we have to make the choices within a
framework of funds available to the committee for a wide range of
activities, all of which are very important. We have to choose among
programs of the U.S. Coast Guard, programs of the Transportation
Security Administration, of the Secret Service, of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, and many others whose accounts are funded
in this annual appropriations bill.
I am hopeful we can withhold action on this particular amendment and
let us have an opportunity to review the committee's work.
So awaiting the further advice of the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee or his staff, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum be dispensed with so I might answer my friend from
Mississippi.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I make this point. We were here 2 years
ago, and a year ago, and my good friend from Mississippi, with the same
eloquence, made the same argument: The amount of money is the amount of
money we have; yes, we could double it, but let's leave it up to the
wisdom of the Department and the committee.
We did that, and in the last year, we have had no money spent on
developing better nuclear detection devices. That is a cheap shot? In
all due respect to my colleague from Mississippi, and I would say in
all due respect this could happen in New York and it could happen in
Houston, TX, and blow over to Mississippi--this could happen anywhere
in the country, and I am sure just as I would want to protect the
citizens of every other State, so would my colleague from Mississippi.
This is hardly an urban issue. Chernobyl did not occur in an urban--
it may have been in an urban setting, but it ruined millions of acres
of farmland, which I know my colleague cares a great deal about, as do
I.
We are asking not for $33 billion, although maybe that would be
spent. If I were the President, I would spend a lot of time figuring
out what we needed and then spend it. I would not just ask for extra
money. This is a small amount of money, $150 million, specifically
directed to nuclear security, when in the past we have not done it. And
my colleague argues we have enough money and leave it to the wisdom of
the Department to do.
By my good friend's logic, we should not have a Congress. Let's have
one broad allocation for homeland security and let them do what they
want. And let's not even look, if they do not do something we all think
is necessary, and come back and say let them do it again.
This is not a typical request. This is not something that just
benefits one specific area or one specific company. This is dealing
with one of the greatest dangers America faces, and spending a small
amount of money after we have learned that Homeland Security will not
do it themselves seems to me to be a reasonable request.
I greatly understand my colleague's nose-in-the-tent argument: If I
am for this, well, I have to be for it for so many other things. But I
ask him to look at the substance of this amendment and its cost, and I
cannot think of an argument against it.
Yes, there is $1.2 billion for all kinds of threats. This is the
greatest threat we face, perhaps, and there is no specific money that
says we have to do this. In the past, when we have had these broad
categories, again Homeland Security has done virtually nothing. Why, I
don't know. I have asked them. They say: Yes, we are working on it,
just as my good friend from Mississippi has said, but nothing happens.
So we wait another year and another year. I hope we do not have to
wait until something terrible happens. That is not what anybody wants.
To say that Congress should not be modifying what the administration
has done says we should not have a Congress, and to say that this
amendment is either frivolous or regional or unnecessary does not make
any sense to me.
If my colleague could assure me that the Homeland Security Department
would do this out of the existing allocation, I would say, sure, but we
had that kind of assurance 2 years ago. My friend, the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, said to me: You are right.
Let us make sure we get this done.
Well, it has not been done. So I would simply say, I know the
committee has labored under what the administration has sent them on
the issue, for instance, of rail security. Where the Rail Association
says we need $6 billion to thoroughly protect our rails, the
administration asked for zero, and the committee comes up with $150
million. That is a lot better than zero but is not close to what we
need.
I say to my friend from Mississippi, the bottom line is, my premise
is we are not doing enough, we are not spending enough dollars, and we
should have a significant increase.
When we came and found we needed $25 billion more for the war in
Iraq, nobody said, well, we could double the number, let's not. Nor
should they have. Well, it is the same thing when it comes to homeland
security. The difference is, it is not a day-to-day issue. Nothing
happens, nothing happens, nothing happens, nothing happens, thank God,
and then something terrible happens and we say, why did we not do it?

[[Page S8944]]

I am trying to prevent that scenario. I am trying to prevent it for
my city and my State and the Senators' cities and the Senators' States,
and everybody.
So I ask that my colleagues look at this amendment. Do not be swayed
by the logic, well, if we double this one we will have to double every
one. Let us look at every one and see what we need. Certainly this one,
which is $150 million more, aimed at a specific program that no one
could object to, makes a great deal of sense. I hope it will pass. I
urge my colleagues to vote for it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator talks about we have sort of
rubberstamped what the President has asked for in some of these areas.
We have agreed with the President on some of his initiatives because we
thought he was right, but when we thought the administration was wrong
or where they have requested funds, as he pointed out, in the railroad
area, for security programs there, this committee has recommended and
the Congress has agreed to add funds over and above what has been
requested by the President.
In this particular area, where the Senator is coming in now and
doubling the amount of money we have in this one particular grant
program--we have appropriated for this program almost $500 million,
specifically for port security grants, since fiscal year 2002. We are
addressing this issue. This is the point, and I am not apologizing for
the decisions this committee has made and that have been ratified by
both Houses of Congress and approved in the appropriations conference
report. We have appropriated almost $500 million specifically for this
program. We have asked for another $150 million this year. That is not
enough, he says; double it.

We can talk about it on and on and on and go into all the other
accounts that involve security in urban areas, high threat areas, but
we have to realize there is a limit. Some Senators think we can come in
and double the amounts in individual accounts and it will not matter,
but if we keep on doing that before this bill is passed, we will have
added no telling how much to the deficit. We would have put the
administration in a position where they are going to have to either ask
for deferrals or recisions of funds. If they cannot possibly get grants
out to people who are qualified to use the money or can justify the use
of the funds, we cannot pour the money on the ground, and I am not
going to stand here and go along with suggestions that amount to
spending more because it sounds as if we are going to be doing more. It
does not necessarily follow.
I am hopeful we will have in place within the next few minutes some
information about the total allocation of funding to this committee,
because without that we can continue to add money for individual
accounts in this bill for the rest of today and tonight and on into the
weekend and then we will have to go back through and start striking
funds that have been added so we will be consistent with the allocation
to the subcommittee.
What I am asking the Senate to do, and the reason I put in the
suggestion for a quorum when I first made the point of order, is to
await the advice of the Committee on Appropriations. I am told they
sent the information over electronic device, but we need it written on
paper so Senators can read it and can understand what the limitations
are. So I am hopeful we can await the advice of the full committee on
the action that has been taken today. I would appreciate it very much.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I indicated earlier that the Senate
Appropriations Committee met earlier this afternoon to approve the
subcommittee funding allocations. The allocations approved are the same
as those provided earlier by the full committee, for this
subcommittee's information. For Homeland Security appropriations, the
approved fiscal year 2005 discretionary spending allocation is $32
billion in budget authority and $29.873 billion in outlays. The bill
reported by the committee is at the $32 billion discretionary budget
authority allocation and $144 million below the outlay allocation. The
allocations for this bill are $897 million in budget authority and $730
million in outlay above the President's request, showing the priority
the committee has placed on Homeland Security accounts and its
appropriations.
This is a fiscally responsible allocation and Members will be
required to provide offsets for any additional spending proposed by
amendments to be added to this bill, or the amendment will be subject
to a 60-vote Budget Act point of order, I am advised. Therefore, I make
a point of order against the Schumer amendment under section 302(f) of
the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides spending in
excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: My friend from
Mississippi said the outlays were still $144 million below what had
been allocated by the committee. If I were to ask unanimous consent to
make this amendment instead of $150 million, $144 million, within the
outlays, would a point of order still lie?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think the Senator asked for a
parliamentary inquiry. I don't have standing to rule on parliamentary
inquiries. That is the responsibility of the Chair.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask the Chair. Given the Budget Act, if this amendment
were to be modified instead of $150 million of new money, given what we
just heard, if the outlays were below $144 million, below the full
committee allocation to the subcommittee, would a point of order still
lie?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised that depends on whether
it would affect the change in outlays as well as budget authority. It
is the understanding of the Chair that there is no room with regard to
budget authority.
Mr. SCHUMER. Continuing my parliamentary inquiry, that would mean a
point of order would lie even if we were within the outlays?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. SCHUMER. Just one further parliamentary inquiry: If we said zero
budget authority but $144 million in outlays, would that be in order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would have to check with the Budget
Committee on the specific numbers.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I imagine it is not. So pursuant to
section 904 of the Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable
section of that act for purposes of the pending amendment and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
vote on the motion to waive in relation to the pending Schumer
amendment at 4:45 p.m. today, with the debate until that time equally
divided in the usual form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have. The question is on agreeing to the
motion to waive the Budget Act.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Carolina
(Mr.

[[Page S8945]]

Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 166 Leg.]

YEAS--50

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

NAYS--46

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

NOT VOTING--4

Akaka
Clinton
Edwards
Kerry
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the ayes are 50, the nays are
46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained, and the amendment falls.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Amendment No. 3581

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have offered this amendment on behalf
of myself, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, Senator Jeffords, Senator
Lieberman, and Senator Feinstein.
I rise today to offer an amendment that would end an ill-advised
attempt by the Department of Homeland Security to privatize jobs that
are vital to keeping Americans safe. This amendment would prohibit DHS
from spending money to contract out immigration information officer,
contact representative, or investigative assistant positions. I am
pleased to have Senators Ben Nelson, Lieberman, and Jeffords as
cosponsors. The House voted for this exact amendment earlier this year
by a vote of 242 to 163, with 49 Republicans supporting it. I trust
that we will have a similar bipartisan majority in the Senate.
Immigration information officers, IIOs, are responsible for screening
applications for immigration benefits for fraud and for performing
criminal background checks on applicants. There are more than 1,200
IIOs and contact representatives around the Nation working for the
Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, branch of DHS. The work they
do in attempting to discover and prevent immigration fraud--and prevent
dangerous people from abusing the immigration system--is clearly
``inherently governmental,'' making them an inappropriate target of a
privatization effort.
As our Nation continues to face the threat of terrorism, CIS carriers
a heavy burden in its attempt to process immigration and naturalization
applications while ensuring that terrorists--along with other
fraudulent actors--do not abuse our immigration system. Information
officers have played a vital role in meeting this burden. Indeed, the
agency's own job description requires that IIOs have the ``[s]kill to
identify fraudulent documents in order to prevent persons from
appealing for benefits for which they are not eligible,'' a skill that
is obviously all the more important in this era. They are also required
by DHS to have ``[k]nowledge and skill in interviewing techniques and
observation of applicants in order to determine if an applicant is
misrepresenting the facts in order to appear eligible for a benefit.''
I am offering this amendment because I believe that weeding out
potential fraud in our immigration system must remain a responsibility
of Government employees, especially when the perpetrator of the fraud
may be a dangerous criminal or terrorist.
In addition to their security-related work, these IIOs perform duties
that are directly related to achieving President Bush's goal, stated
during his 2000 campaign and since, of providing more efficient
services to lawful immigrants. IIOs increase efficiency by, as their
job description states, exploring ``all avenues of assistance available
to the customer; determin[ing] the benefit most advantageous if more
than one exists, and try[ing] to motivate the customer to file the
appropriate application(s).'' IIOs also have extensive knowledge and
use discretion in their positions--they are required to have
``knowledge of the exclusion and deportation regulations'' and
``knowledge and familiarity with the immigration and nationality
laws.'' As CIS continues its efforts to reduce the backlog faced by
immigration applicants to 6 months, the last thing we should be doing
is replacing knowledgeable immigration professionals with inexperienced
contract workers.
Should a private contractor win the work currently performed by IIOs,
that contractor will be responsible for adjudicating immigration
benefits and detecting fraud and criminal activity, requiring the
contractor to make decisions that are both sensitive to national
security and have a huge impact on the lives of millions of immigrants.
This would be a bad idea in any era, but it is particularly
inappropriate now.
I have a personal interest in this issue because about 100 fine
Vermonters currently work as IIOs. I know the fine work they do, and I
know that my staff and, indeed, all of our staffs rely on them and
their counterparts throughout the country when we are seeking to help
our constituents. I know that our Nation will be better off if these
fine men and women remain in their current positions.
Thirty-five members of this body are already on record in opposition
to contracting out the IIO positions. We wrote to Secretary Ridge a
year ago, seeking the cancellation of the A-76 process. I have since
joined with Senators Lieberman, Byrd, and Kennedy in obtaining
documentation from DHS about its decision to launch the A-76 process to
hire private contractors to perform the work currently done by IIOs.
The documents the Department has provided have proven illuminating.
They have shown that officials within CIS did not think there should be
private sector competition for these jobs, and believed that the IIOs
were performing inherently governmental work. These officials took
their concerns to the leadership at DHS, but their views were
overruled, and the competition proceeded.
Grant Thornton and PEC Solutions, outside consultants hired by DHS,
drafted memoranda and presentations to demonstrate that going forward
with the job competition was unwise. These views, too, were ignored.

[[Page S8946]]

The decision to contract out these positions is all the more
disturbing because it has the hallmarks of a decision made simply to
meet a quota. The Bush administration set a goal of privatizing 15
percent of Government jobs shortly after it took office. When the
original decision to submit the IIO positions to competition was made,
they were still INS and Department of Justice employees. According to a
senior official at CIS, that original decision was made when the Office
of Management and Budget informed DOJ that it had only hours to submit
1,200 positions that could be privatized. Only James Ziglar, then the
INS Commissioner, even knew that the IIO positions would be submitted
to OMB.
After the INS was transferred to DHS, the new Department had to
decide whether to continue with the competition. DHS announced its
decision to subject the jobs to competition in August 2003, and DHS
documents suggest that the 15-percent goal remained a major factor in
the decision, with the leader of the DHS privatization office referring
to the need to meet OMB's 15-percent goal as recently as October 2003.
This was true even though Congress prohibited agencies in February
2003--10 months earlier--from applying or enforcing any numerical goals
or targets for subjecting employees to public-private competition, and
even though the administration grudgingly announced it would abide by
the law forbidding this quota in July 2003.
This amendment would also protect the jobs of investigative
assistants. These CIS employees work in the Fraud Detection Unit,
searching a variety of private, governmental, and criminal databases to
find information about applicants for immigration benefits. These
positions were created in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001,
attacks, to ensure that only qualified personnel would have access to
highly sensitive databases. Despite the nature of the position and the
circumstances under which it was created, DHS has demonstrated interest
in privatizing these positions as well. This amendment would put a stop
to that misguided effort as well.
In conclusion, this amendment would protect Federal employees who are
trying to weed out fraud in the immigration system and assist lawful
immigrants seeking benefits to which they are entitled. It had
overwhelming bipartisan support in the House, passing with nearly 50
Republican votes. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Madam President, I will summarize what this is about for my
colleagues. There is an attempt to privatize a number of jobs in the
Department of Homeland Security. These jobs are vital to our American
security. I do not believe they should be privatized. A majority of the
other body feels the same way.
My amendment would prohibit DHS, the Department of Homeland Security,
spending money to contract out immigration information officer, contact
representative, or investigative assistant positions. That is why I am
glad Senators Nelson of Nebraska, Lieberman, Jeffords, and Feinstein
have cosponsored this amendment.
This is not a partisan issue. The House voted for this exact
amendment. They just copied the wording of it. They voted overwhelming
for it, 242 to 163, with 49 Republicans supporting it. I hope we will
have similar bipartisan support in the Senate.
Let me explain immigration information officers. We call them IIOs.
They are the people who screen applications for immigration benefits
for fraud. They perform criminal background checks on applicants. There
are more than 1,200 of these IIOs and contact representatives around
the Nation. They work for the Citizenship and Immigration Service, a
branch of DHS.
The work they do in attempting to discover and prevent immigration
fraud and prevent very dangerous people from abusing the immigration
system is clearly inherently governmental.
This is not a custodial service. This is not a landscape service.
These are things preventing immigration fraud. It is clearly inherently
governmental. So it should not be part of a privatization effort.
As we all know, our Nation continues to face the threat of terrorism.
CIS carries a heavy burden to attempt to process immigration and
naturalization applications, but they have to ensure that terrorists,
along with a lot of fraudulent actors, do not abuse our immigration
system. They play a vital role in meeting this burden. In fact, the
agency's own job description requires that ``they have the skill to
identify fraudulent documents in order to prevent persons from
appealing for benefits for which they are not eligible.'' That is a
skill obviously all the more important in this era.
They are also required by DHS to have knowledge and skilled
interviewing techniques in observation of applications. What they have
to do comes from years of experience. They have to be able to find
those people who are seeking a benefit who are not eligible.
I have spent a lot of time on immigration matters and I believe that
weeding out potential fraud in our immigration system is a major
responsibility of our Government. It is a major responsibility of our
Government employees. We do not turn it over to somebody else,
especially when the perpetrator of that fraud could be a very dangerous
criminal or a terrorist. I do not want to have it turned over to Fraud
Catchers USA. I want it within our Government so we know what standards
are being followed.
They also perform duties that are directly related to achieving
President Bush's goal of providing more efficient services to lawful
immigrants. They increase efficiency, explore all avenues of assistance
available to the customer to determine the benefit most advantageous
when more than one exists, again based on vast experience.
The administration wants to reduce the backlog faced by immigration
applicants to 6 months. Well, suddenly putting in a whole new service
to do it makes little sense. If a private contractor does it, that
contractor is going to be responsible for adjudicating immigration
benefits and detecting fraud and criminal activity that will require
the contractor to make decisions that are sensitive to our national
security. It is also going to have a huge impact on the lives of
millions of immigrants. I think this would be a bad idea in any era,
but with the terror threat we face now, I think it is a very bad one.
The amendment would also protect the jobs of investigative assistants
who work in the fraud detection unit. These positions were created in
the aftermath of September 11 attacks. Despite the nature of the
position, despite the circumstances under which it was created, DHS has
demonstrated interest in privatizing these positions as well. I think
that is a mistake.
As I said, this passed overwhelmingly in the other body, Republicans
and Democrats alike supporting it. I hope we would do the same.
I see the distinguished Senator from Nebraska on his feet, and I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I have cosponsored, as my
distinguished colleague from Vermont has indicated, an amendment to the
Homeland Security appropriations bill, and I ask unanimous consent that
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada be added as a cosponsor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I believe this is a matter of great
importance to the security of our country. The amendment would
eliminate funding for an A-76 competitive outsourcing study of
immigration information officer, contact representative, and
investigative assistant positions within the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, or the BCIS, at the Department of Homeland
Security.
As a general principle, I do not oppose privatization of Government
jobs where doing so clearly is in the best interest of the most
efficient use of taxpayers' dollars and is in the best interest of not
only our Government but of the taxpayers. I do believe, though, that
there are some types of jobs that can and should be performed by
Government, as well as some jobs and services that can be performed by
private contractors. I believe that deciding which jobs are appropriate
for privatization should be a very careful and deliberative process. It
should not be done to meet arbitrary quotas. In the

[[Page S8947]]

case of these particular BCIS jobs, I believe DHS has made a mistake in
subjecting them to an A-76 study.
In this instance in particular, I do not believe privatizing these
particular jobs is appropriate or will best serve the interests of our
country. I believe these jobs are intricately tied to the national
security of our country and therefore are inherently governmental.
These jobs require a high level of discretion and of very specific
knowledge of immigration laws to determine who is eligible for
immigration benefits. These workers are charged with weeding out fraud
in the immigration system and identifying those with criminal histories
or those who could be potential terrorists. These are the types of jobs
that are inherently governmental in that they are vital to protecting
our country from security threats.
The DHS's own job descriptions for these positions illustrate why
these positions are inherently governmental. For example, immigration
information officers are required to have the ``skill to identify
fraudulent documents in order to prevent persons from appealing for
benefits for which they are not eligible.'' They are also required to
have ``knowledge and skill in interviewing techniques and observation
of applicants in order to determine if an applicant is misrepresenting
the facts in order to appear eligible for a benefit.''
In addition, according to the DHS's own job descriptions, workers in
these positions are exposed to highly confidential information and may
at times be exposed to national security information. They must
exercise their discretion by observing and questioning individuals for
the purpose of determining if those individuals are attempting to
submit applications under fraudulent situations and reasons. This can
lead to the arrest or detention and subsequent deportation of those
aliens and may lead to the prosecution of cases.
In Nebraska alone, there are 100 workers within the BCIS performing
these functions, and I have heard from them directly about why they
believe their duties are inherently governmental. Quite frankly, I
agree with them. I believe it would be unwise, especially in our
country's current heightened state of alert to terrorist threats, to
outsource jobs that are so closely linked to the security and safety of
our country. Weeding out potential fraud in our immigration system must
indeed remain a responsibility of Government employees, especially when
the perpetrator of the fraud may be a dangerous criminal or a
terrorist.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Leahy's and my
amendment and prevent these jobs from being privatized.
I thank the Senator from Vermont.

Amendment No. 3582 to Amendment No. 3581

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

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

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

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit to
Congress, at least 60 days prior to award, a report on the results of
an Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 competition, to
include estimated savings, performance improvements, and the impact on
jobs and Federal Government employees)

Strike all after the word ``Sec.'' and insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to make an award, pursuant to a competition under Office
of Management and Budget Circular A-76, to a source for the
performance of services that were provided as of June 1,
2004, by employees (including employees serving on a
temporary or term basis) of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security
known as of that date as Immigration Information Officers,
Contact Representatives, or Investigative Assistants unless--
(1) the Secretary of Homeland Security submits to Congress,
not later than 60 days before making such award, a report
that describes--
(A) the performance requirements for the services;
(B) the estimated savings to be derived from the
performance of such services by that source;
(C) the actions that are to be taken to effectuate the
transition to performance either by Federal Government
employees under the applicable most efficient organization
plan or by a contractor, as the case may be; and
(D) the strategy for mitigating the adverse effects of such
award, if any, on Federal Government employees; and
(2) the making of the award to that source will not result
in the closure of an immigration information service center
that was in operation on June 1, 2004.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I offer this as a second degree to the
pending amendment of the Senator from Vermont. The amendment
specifically restricts the Department's ability to conduct competitions
under President Bush's competitive sourcing initiative, which is an
integral part of his management agenda. As a strong supporter of the
competitive sourcing process and consistent advocate for a smaller and
more efficient government, I offer this second degree to ensure that
any attempts to restrict the Department of Homeland Security in
implementing its competitive sourcing efforts are limited.
The positions in question, immigration information officers, have
been identified by the Department as noninherently governmental
functions. They have been identified by the Department in that
category. They are commercial activities and can be performed in the
private sector without endangering our homeland security efforts.
The Department of Homeland Security is simply complying with the FAIR
Act by subjecting these positions to public/private competition in
order to determine if they could best be performed by the private
sector or remain in house. This competition was initiated by the
Department of Justice prior to the transfer to DHS. It is critical to
significantly improving first line services associated with processing
immigration applications and benefits. DHS is in the process of
completing its competition in these very positions, and the amendment
of the Senator would prohibit DHS from completing this competition.
Numerous studies have confirmed that competitions create opportunities
for innovative, improved data management, economic, and performance
improvements. They are confident that competition has already provided
a powerful incentive for both the public and the private sector sources
to identify new and better ways of meeting the requirements.
This information has to do with these positions. The IIOs are GS-5s,
7s, and 8s, with supervisors at the GS-9 level, who perform only first
line procedural processing for a range of immigrant applications/
benefits. They are not performing inherently governmental work, are not
policymakers or regulators, do not bind the Government to a course of
action. Adjudicators, who have authority to investigate, correct,
overrule and make final decisions regarding immigration status, are a
separate function within the Citizenship and Immigration Service, but
are not covered by this proposed, or any other, DHS competition.
The DHS has opened its commercial activity currently performed by
Government employees to competition from the private sector in order to
improve services, improve the opportunity for innovation, improve
levels of security, and create the possibility of cost savings. The
Government and private sector will compete for the work based on
quality and cost.
The agency has written that on a governmentwide basis, competitions
completed in fiscal year 2003 are estimated to generate savings and
cost avoidances of over $1 billion over the next 3 to 5 years. The
House version of the bill contains a provision that would block DHS
from using competition to choose the best public or private sector
sources to handle tasks associated with the processing of immigration
applications. We understand an amendment may be offered on the Senate
floor that would preclude public-private competition and turn back DHS
efforts to significantly improve customer service for immigrants. If
the final version of the bill were to contain such a prohibition, the
President's senior advisor would recommend he veto the bill.
We have been through this a number of times. It always is presented
as if these are replacing Government jobs

[[Page S8948]]

with private sector jobs which, first of all, I don't think is a bad
idea but nevertheless that is not the case. This is competition. This
is an opportunity for both those in the Government service and in the
private sector to have an opportunity to deal with these administrative
first level jobs--these are people who do not make the decisions, they
simply go through the details of this--and to allow this agency to
continue to seek to make their work more effective and more efficient.
Somehow, every time this comes up we have this opposition to this
program that has been in place, is in place, and the fact is it has
already been proven to save considerable amount of money. It is already
proven in most cases, as a matter of fact, because of the improvement
on the part of the Federal employees; they remain there through the
competition.
It just seems to me it is a mistake for us to get into this program
and say you can't do that anymore. Clearly these people are not the
people who are decisionmakers. They are the folks who are doing the
administrative work that brings it to the decisionmakers.
Additionally, my amendment would not result in the closure of any
immigration service centers or district offices currently in operation,
which appears to be the concern of some of the sponsors.
I hope we can take a long look at this and that we can try to allow
this program of efficiency, of cost saving, to be continued by this
department. Let them make the decision as to who can best do this task.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have great respect for the Senator from
Wyoming. He is a friend. I understand what he is saying. Unfortunately,
the reason why this position was not taken in the other body is what he
has asked for is something they could do anyway, simply ask for a
reporting requirement. What they have done, in asking for that, they
simply put it over for another 60 days and then do exactly what they
want. I don't think anybody questions the reporting that would come
back from the very department that wants to do this would be to say: Do
what you want to do. They accept the report, they accept the way it
will be done. Rather than needing 60 days, they could probably do it in
6 minutes.
What I am concerned about is the reason why there is such a
bipartisan support for this in the other body--not for the gutting
amendment of the Senator from Wyoming but for our amendment--was this
makes sure that these very critical services are in the hands of
Government agencies.
There are jobs that can be privatized but I think sometimes we
privatize what we should not. We sometimes privatize law enforcement
and we have seen some of the problems we have had in our prisons when
we have done that. Otherwise we privatize investigations and we find
that people have their records and their reputations ruined by private
companies that do not meet the standards they are supposed to follow
and afterwards they say, Sorry, we made a mistake.
Frankly, if you vote for the second-degree amendment you are voting
to outsource positions that are critical to our security. We have had
35 Senators who have already written to Secretary Ridge, asking him not
to do this. Basically the second-degree amendment simply says tell us
why you think you should do it and just go ahead and do it anyway.
I hope we would not vote for it.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered
by Senator Leahy, myself, and other colleagues that would prohibit
opening up the Immigration Information Officers, IIO, position for
commercial competition.
This position was opened for commercial competition after a
determination that the IIO position was not performing an ``inherently
governmental activity,'' and thus capable of being filled through
commercial competition. This decision was fundamentally flawed and
will, if implemented, be an impediment to national security.
While a very basic description of the functions performed by an IIO
might include telephonic and written responses to questions from the
public, a closer look at the duties actually performed by IIOs results
in a more varied list of duties. My staff and I have had the pleasure
of being helped by IIOs on numerous occasions over the years in our
attempts to assist my constituents. It is my experience, that IIOs not
only provide basic immigration information to the public, but they also
have the ability to advise petitioners on the type of petition to file;
they have the authority to correct mistakes made in Citizenship and
Immigration Services, CIS, records and computer systems; they can
reject petitions for various reasons; and it is my understanding that
many IIOs adjudicate petitions.
As anyone who is familiar with United States immigration law knows,
interpreting regulations and offering advice is a complicated business.
When dealing with immigration law, the potential is great for making a
mistake that could severely impact a business or a family for a
lifetime. Thus, it is inconceivable to me that CIS would consider
opening this position to commercial competition.
In the interest of security, following the 2001 terrorist attacks,
the Federal Government decided that airport passenger screeners should
be Federal employees. Consistent with that decision, I believe that
maintaining the IIO position as a Federal employee position strengthens
our protection against future terrorist attacks.
In reality, IIOs have the ability to determine who can or cannot
remain in this country. When dealing with the public, they draw from a
wealth of institutional knowledge that benefits not only the
petitioner, but also the entire Nation. IIOs also have access to agency
records and can, in fact, modify such information when appropriate.
For many years, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS,
struggled to live up to the word ``service'' in its name. It is my hope
that at the beginning of this new era, with the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security, including the CIS, we will not weaken
our ability to provide persons seeking immigration benefits with the
service they deserve. Having the important duties of Immigration
Information Officers performed by individuals selected through
commercial competition will only hinder the service provided, not
improve it.
A similar amendment passed in the House of Representatives during its
consideration of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations
bill this year, and I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues will join us
in supporting this important amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, it occurs to me that this is an issue
that probably ought not be on this bill. As a matter of general
principle, it is a legislative decision. It seems to me the committee
of jurisdiction would probably be the committee chaired by the
distinguished Presiding Officer.
Having said that, that doesn't make this amendment go away by itself.
We have to dispose of it. We have to deal with it. Frankly, I am
confused about how the amendment got added to the House Appropriations
Committee bill. I am told it was an amendment offered on the floor and
it was adopted by the House. This seems to me an amendment that ought
to be at least discussed in conference. If we adopt the Leahy amendment
without changing it at all, then we are stuck with the language, it
seems to me. I don't know how you get away from having this provision
in the final version of the bill, and this appropriations process would
have been subverted and it would have been distorted.
This is not an appropriations amendment. We are not talking about an
amount of money to be appropriated for any particular purpose.
Immigration services are provided, of course, by the Department of
Homeland Security and apparently the Department feels it ought to have
flexibility in the administration of that program. We are singling out
an employment circular to prohibit its effectiveness on an
appropriations bill. I think it is fairly convoluted.
I don't like the process. The Senator from Wyoming comes in and
offers a modification, which basically requires the Department to
provide information on its intentions.
It must submit to Congress not later than 60 days before making an
award.

[[Page S8949]]

This is an award for providing services under the auspices of the
Bureau of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Before it makes an
award to someone to provide these services, it has to go through
certain steps and make this disclosure to the Congress.
It seems to me that this is an appropriate place to at least call
time out and let us put this issue on hold and give the Appropriations
Committee an opportunity to consider it in conference. We would have to
resolve the differences between this amendment and this provision in
the Senate and the one adopted by the House.
I fully support the amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming.
Let me add one other note. The administration submits to the
committee after we write a bill in the Appropriations Committee a
Statement of Administration Policy. Looking at their Statement of
Administration Policy on the bill as reported by our Appropriations
Committee, you get down to the bottom of page 2 where it talks about
competitive sourcing, it states:

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

So I can't stand idly by and see this provision be included in the
bill and risk the veto of this Homeland Security appropriations bill
that we have worked very hard to craft, after hearings and hearings,
and with the good assistance of other Senators on the subcommittee such
as the distinguished Senator from Vermont. I would hate to see all of
our work go for naught and have to start over with a vetoed bill.
I am urging Senators to vote for the Thomas amendment and let us take
this issue to conference and see if it can be resolved in a way that
gets the bill signed and takes care of the concerns expressed by the
distinguished Senator, my very good friend from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have served for over a quarter of a
century on the Appropriations Committee with the distinguished senior
Senator from Mississippi. I hope this doesn't hurt him back home when I
can state unequivocally that nobody works harder than he does. Nobody
is more conscientious in going through legislation. I know he has
worked very hard on the appropriations bill before us. As he knows, I
have supported him in the subcommittee on a great deal of measures in
this bill. We have similar views.
On the question of vetoes, I can remember the last time a piece of
legislation I was working on with the White House, saying they would
veto legislation if we put in the TRICARE provisions to provide health
care for our National Guard and Reserve members and their families,
even at a time when an extraordinary, unprecedented number of National
Guard and Reserve members were being called up for the war in Iraq and
were being required to serve way beyond the time anyone ever
anticipated. Nobody could understand why the White House would do that
which basically undercuts the brave men and women who are going over
there. Fortunately, Republicans and Democrats came together in this
body and the other body and passed the legislation with very strong
bipartisan support and somehow the veto threat disappeared.
I suspect the same thing. This bill is not going to be vetoed on this
issue. I understand the threats. I have been here for 30 years, and I
have seen Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents and
administrations. It never comes through the Presidents. It says their
senior advisers would recommend a veto threat. I have seen hundreds of
these in my 30 years I have been in the Senate. I have probably seen
about a dozen vetoes come out of the hundreds and hundreds of threats,
even though they have been ignored.
The distinguished chairman of the subcommittee has a responsibility
to bring that forward. But he knows, as I do, that we hear veto threats
almost as though they were being printed and cranked out when any bill
comes along.
I think it never would have passed a body as tightly controlled by
the Republicans as the House of Representatives, it would never have
passed with the overwhelming support had they really thought there
would be a veto.
I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from
Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, be added as a cosponsor to my amendment to the
underlying amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would say only this: If the Thomas
amendment is adopted, it effectively kills the Leahy amendment and
allows the outsourcing to go forward on what is a critical governmental
responsibility.
As I have said before, I would be happy to see a private enterprise
stake. As we know, this administration has dramatically increased the
number of Government employees. They went down substantially during the
8 years of President Clinton's administration, and they have increased
more than any time in a dozen years by this administration. Maybe they
could look for areas of outsourcing but not outsourcing in those areas
that are critical to our lives and our national security and fight
against terrorism.
I am perfectly willing to go to a vote on the Thomas amendment, but I
would remind everybody that it kills the Leahy-Nelson et al amendment
and allows at a time of heightened terrorist threat the Department of
Homeland Security, which dramatically increased the number of
employees, to take some very key governmental employees and turn them
over to the private sector and say the private sector can handle our
security from terrorists who might try to come in under the immigration
rubric better than our own Government could do.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, are we going to vote? Fine. I would like
to be able to make a closing statement pretty much as my friend from
Vermont did.
I want you to remember that this is an effort that is being made
throughout the Government to try to find a way to be more efficient. It
is not outsourcing; it is competition; and whoever does the best job
ends up doing this activity.
I further remind you that these are not people who make decisions
with regard to terrorism. These are the people who do the detail work
and report to folks who make the decisions.
I also remind you that this Department is in the process of doing
this now, is willing to come to the Senate as we proceed and report
where they are. This is part of the program that has been ongoing. It
has been proven to work. We ought to continue to do it here.

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a situation where an amendment has
been offered. Eventually, there will be a vote on the amendment offered
by Senator Leahy and Senator Nelson. It may not be tonight. Before this
bill is finished, they have a right to have their amendment heard,
which it has been, and voted on.
Everyone should understand this amendment will not go away. People
will vote on outsourcing. That is the way it is. So everyone
understands, there will be another opportunity for Senators Nelson and
Leahy to offer the amendment. If the majority wants to second-degree
the amendment and filibuster their own bill, we would have to do it
some other time.

[[Page S8950]]

We, in good faith offered, an amendment. Time was very limited. These
two men spoke very short periods of time. There are many others who
wanted to speak, but in the context of what the two leaders said, we
should try to move this bill along. We tried to do that. At least we
should have an opportunity to vote on these amendments.
It appears the majority is attempting to not allow us an opportunity
to vote on this amendment. And it will happen, sooner or later.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, so there is no illusion about who is
responsible for suggesting we have a vote on the Thomas amendment, it
is me. It is not the majority leader. As the manager of this bill, I
think we ought to follow the regular order. The Senator from Vermont
laid down an amendment. The Senator from Wyoming offered an amendment
to the amendment. It is in order.
We have had a debate on it. He is entitled to a vote on his
amendment. We ought to have it. If his amendment prevails, then we vote
on the amendment as amended. Nobody is going to filibuster the bill on
this side. I am not going to. I am not going to filibuster my own bill
because of this amendment. I want people to understand it is not this
big an issue. It is not going to bring down the Senate and block
consideration of this bill as far as I am concerned.
Mr. LEAHY. I wonder if I might ask the senior distinguished Senator
from Mississippi a question. He has said this matter has to go to
conference. He is absolutely right. He will hold the majority votes in
the conference. Why not this: Why not set both the Thomas amendment as
a freestanding amendment, the Nelson-Leahy, et al, amendment, as a
freestanding amendment, take them both to conference?
Mr. COCHRAN. I will give a quick answer. I am not going to, by
unanimous consent, deprive any Senator of a right to offer an
amendment. That is what I would be doing if I would, by agreement, say
that you can offer an amendment and have a vote on it without any other
Senator having an opportunity to modify it.
That is not in the rules of the Senate. It is inconsistent with the
traditions of the institution to do that.
Mr. LEAHY. The reason I suggest it is because the Senator from
Wyoming is in the Senate, and it is his amendment. That way he could be
part of it.
The Senator from Mississippi is absolutely right. We go forward with
a vote--I was suggesting a way to save having to put the other
amendment up at another time. It still becomes a matter of conference.
If the distinguished Senator from Mississippi wishes to go forward with
the vote on the Thomas, that is fine with me.
I would state, as I have before, that is a defeat of the underlying
Nelson-Leahy, et al, amendment which will come up in another form at a
later time. I am perfectly willing to go ahead and vote now.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the second-degree amendment
offered by the Senator from Wyoming.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Carolina
(Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 167 Leg.]

YEAS--49

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

NAYS--47

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

NOT VOTING--4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the
managers, we have had the basic debate on this amendment. I ask that we
have 2 minutes on each side and then go to a vote, if that is
agreeable. I will make that request.
I ask unanimous consent that we have 4 minutes equally divided and
that it then be in order to request the yeas and nays and go to a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I do not know what the amendment is. It
was sent to the desk. It would be nice to know what it is so we would
know whether we should agree to the unanimous consent request to limit
2 minutes to a side.
Mr. LEAHY. I apologize. I thought the distinguished Senator from
Mississippi had been advised of this amendment. It is basically my
underlying amendment as freestanding.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. If this is an
amendment that has already been before the Senate and to which an
amendment has been added, is it in order for the Senator to put before
the Senate the same amendment as an amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is in order because the amendment is now in
a different posture as a second-degree amendment.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to the request for
the time agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as I said before, the amendment I have
offered is the same amendment that passed overwhelmingly in the House
of Representatives, with strong Republican support.

[[Page S8951]]

It says on these very critical--very critical--steps based in the
former INS in which they try to weed out possible terrorists on
immigration applications that this not be contracted out to a private
company but be done by professionals. That is really the bottom line.
We can talk about it for hours. We have had the debate before.
I withhold the remainder of my time, and I will ask for the yeas and
nays once time is yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is not yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. We just voted on this same issue. We have voted on it a
dozen times. What we have here is an effort by this Government to try
to be more efficient, more cost saving, by having competition. That is
what is involved.
Let me say that these immigration information officers are GS-5s, 7s,
and 8s, with supervisors at the GS-9 level, who perform only first-line
procedural processing. They are not performing any ``inherently
governmental'' work. They are not policymakers or regulators. They do
not bind the Government to a course of action. This is already underway
in this administration. They have looked at doing this. Who knows who
is going to do it more efficiently? We are saying to the Government
that you cannot do that. You have to leave things the way they are, and
we don't want to have any opportunity to do things better than we have
been doing them. That is what it is all about. I urge a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
Mr. COCHRAN. I strongly urge Senators to vote against the Leahy
amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, do I have time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 56 seconds.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are talking about people who attempt to
discover and prevent immigration fraud, prevent dangerous people from
abusing the immigration system. This is inherently governmental. We
have kept inherently governmental things like law enforcement within
the Government. We should do it here with these 1,200 immigration
information officers who contact representatives around the Nation. We
have an inherent body of expertise that we need in this fight against
terrorism.
I yield back my remaining time and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Vermont.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from North Carolina
(Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 168 Leg.]

YEAS--49

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

NAYS--47

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

NOT VOTING--4

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

Amendment No. 3581, As Amended

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

Amendments Nos. 3586 Through 3588, En Bloc

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

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

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

amendment no. 3586

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

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

[[Page S8952]]

On page 11, line 25, strike ``audit'' and insert
``review''.

AMENDMENT NO. 3587

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

AMENDMENT NO. 3588

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

On page 37, line 6, strike all after ``(a)'' down through
and including ``2005.'' on page 39, line 5 and insert the
following:
``None of the funds provided by this or previous
appropriations Acts may be obligated for deployment or
implementation, on other than a test basis, of the Computer
Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II) or Secure
Flight or other follow on/successor programs, that the
Transportation Security administration (TSA) plans to utilize
to screen aviation passengers, until the Government
Accountability Office has reported to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
that--
(1) a system of due process exists whereby aviation
passengers determined to pose a threat and either delayed or
prohibited from boarding their scheduled flights by the TSA
may appeal such decision and correct erroneous information
contained in CAPPS II or Secure Flight or other follow on/
successor programs;
(2) the underlying error rate of the government and private
data bases that will be used both to establish identity and
assign a risk level to a passenger will not produce a large
number of false positives that will result in a significant
number of passengers being treated mistakenly or security
resources being diverted;
(3) the TSA has stress-tested and demonstrated the efficacy
and accuracy of all search tools in CAPPS II or Secure flight
or other follow on/successor programs and has demonstrated
that CAPPS II or Secure flight or other follow on/successor
programs can make an accurate predictive assessment of those
passengers who may constitute a threat to aviation;
(4) the Secretary of Homeland Security has established an
internal oversight board to monitor the manner in which CAPPS
II or Secure flight or other follow on/successor programs are
being developed and prepared;
(5) The TSA has built in sufficient operational safeguards
to reduce the opportunities for abuse;
(6) substantial security measures are in place to protect
CAPPS II or Secure Flight or other follow on/successor
programs from unauthorized access by hackers or other
intruders;
(7) the TSA has adopted policies establishing effective
oversight of the sue and operation of the system;
(8) there are no specific privacy concerns with the
technological architecture of the system; and
(9) the TSA has, pursuant to the requirements of 49 USC
44903 (i)(2)(A), modified CAPPS II or Secure flight or other
follow on/successor programs with respect to intrastate
transportation to accommodate States with unique air
transportation needs and passengers who might otherwise
regularly trigger primary selectee status.
(b) During the testing phase permitted by paragraph (a) of
this section, no information gathered from passengers,
foreign or domestic air carriers, or reservation systems may
be used to screen aviation passengers, or delay or deny
boarding to such passengers, except in instances where
passenger names are matched to a government watch list.
(c) The Government Accountability Office shall submit the
report required under paragraph (a) of this section no later
than February 15, 2005.''.

Amendment No. 3586

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

Amendment No. 3587

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

Amendment No. 3588

This amendment makes technical corrections to bill language for the
Government Accountability Office to report on the progress of the
Secure Flight program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, the
amendments are agreed to.
The amendments (Nos. 3586 through 3588), en bloc, were agreed to.
Mr. REID. Madam President, while the distinguished manager of the
bill is in the Chamber, I wonder if the Senator would agree--I talked
to him personally, but so Senator Byrd knows--that Senator Byrd could
offer his amendment during morning business in the morning. Would that
be appropriate?
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, it is certainly OK with me for Senator
Byrd to offer his amendment any time he wants to offer it. We are not
putting one Senator in front of another. But he is the distinguished
ranking member of the subcommittee, and we would be happy to see him
offer his amendment when he wants to in the morning.
Mr. REID. I would say through the Chair to the distinguished manager
of the bill that Senator Byrd is planning to be here when morning
business finishes around 10:30 tomorrow. Our next amendment in order
will be that offered by Senators Dodd and Stabenow on first responders.
That would be the next one that we would offer, just so the
distinguished manager of the bill knows that.
Mr. COCHRAN. If it suits Senator Byrd, it suits me. There are some
amendments on the list that we have been reviewing hoping to agree
those would be the only amendments in order to the bill. I don't know
how close we are to reaching an agreement on that or whether the acting
leader is empowered to sign off on those agreements. We probably should
wait until Senator Byrd is here though.
Mr. REID. We are working on a list of amendments, and we are not
ready to do it at this time, but maybe tomorrow sometime we could do
that. We will do our very best.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I encourage Senators to let us know if
they intend to offer an amendment to this bill. We would like to have a
finite list of amendments so we can expedite final conclusion of this
bill tomorrow or as soon as possible.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to discuss an
amendment which I have been discussing with the manager of the bill
which would allocate $50 million for high-risk organizations as defined
under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code with the priority
of that $50 million to be determined by the Secretary of Homeland
Security. The $50 million figure is firm, and there is no doubt that
there will be a need for more than $50 million. This is a start. This
is a start on the protection of 501(c)(3)s and the discretion of the
Secretary of Homeland Security is limited to establishing the priority
for the use of the $50 million. The Secretary does not have the
authority to put up the $50 million. The $50 million will be firm under
this amendment, with the discretion of the Secretary to establish the
priority.

This amendment, which is currently being reworked, is expected to
have $50 million dedicated for assistance to nonprofit organizations as
defined under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code 1986 which are at high
risk of international terrorist attack, with priority funding to be
determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
An earlier draft of this amendment was to be cosponsored by Senator
Mikulski, Senator Santorum, Senator Murray, Senator Lugar, Senator
Kennedy, and Senator Lieberman, but they are not being added as
cosponsors at this point because they have to look over the change in
wordage. But the substantive thrust is exactly the same, to provide $50
million for these 501(c)(3) institutions which are at high risk.
The Director of Central Intelligence has stated that al-Qaida has
turned its attention to so-called ``soft targets.'' Al-Qaida's
willingness to attack soft targets of all kinds has been made readily
apparent with the attacks in the United States, England, Canada, Spain,
Germany, Iraq, Tunisia, Kenya, Morocco, and Turkey, including an
International Red Cross building, synagogues, train stations, hotels,
airplanes, restaurants, nightclubs, and cultural and community centers.
There is broad national support for this initiative with the
following organizations illustrative of the support: the American
Association of Homes

[[Page S8953]]

and Services for the Aging; the American Jewish Committee; the American
Jewish Congress; the American Red Cross; the American Society of
Association Executives; the Association of Art Museum Directors; the
Association of Jewish Aging Services of North America; Independent
Sector; National Assembly of Health and Human Service Organizations;
National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities; Theater
Communications Group; Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations; United
Jewish Communities, representing 155 Jewish federations; the United
Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; the United Way of America; and the
YMCA of the United States of America.
This assistance would be delivered pursuant to pending legislation
which Senator Mikulski and I have introduced as Senate bill 2275 which
was marked up by the Governmental Affairs Committee and is now on the
docket of the Senate.
I would have waited until tomorrow to make this presentation, but I
will be traveling with President Bush in Pennsylvania so I will not be
here to offer the amendment. The amendment has been discussed, as I
say, with the manager. I believe it is going to be accepted, but it
cannot be offered at the present moment because the senior Senator from
West Virginia, Senator Byrd, has an amendment which he intends to offer
which is broader in scope and, if enacted, may well cover this
amendment. It is hard always to say what is going to happen if any
amendment is offered in the future, but in the event the Byrd amendment
is not accepted, then this amendment will be offered.
To repeat, I think it will be acceptable to the managers; however, no
commitments were made. If the Byrd amendment is not accepted, or voted
for and adopted, this amendment may still be in order, depending on the
precise language of the amendment to be offered by Senator Byrd.
I wanted to lay out the provisions. It is very important that
churches, synagogues, YMCAs, and other religious institutions have some
specified protection under this Homeland Security bill.
The authorizing legislation which Senator Mikulski and I produced has
been marked up and approved by the Governmental Affairs Committee. It
authorizes some $100 million. But in discussions with the manager, the
$50 million figure appears to be acceptable. We want to proceed on that
basis.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Maritime Patrol Aircraft Requirements

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I seek recognition for the purpose of
engaging Senator Cochran, Chairman of the Homeland Security
Appropriations Subcommittee, in a discussion on the U.S. Coast Guard's
Deepwater program.
The chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Cochran, has the good
fortune of representing a coastal State on the Gulf of Mexico very
similar in geography to my State of Alabama. The chairman is an
outstanding steward and supporter of the United States Coast Guard and
in particular the ongoing Deepwater modernization program in the Coast
Guard. This bill addresses numerous issues related to Deepwater and I
appreciate the chairman's support and leadership on this vital issue to
every coastal State, as well as the Nation.
Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator from Alabama for his kind words. He
is both a colleague and a neighbor to my State of Mississippi. As
neighbors, our two States have a strong appreciation for a strong and
capable Coast Guard.
Mr. SHELBY. I note that this bill contains a provision to address a
continuing issue of concern over the provision of Maritime Patrol
Aircraft assets for the United States Coast Guard. Last year, the
chairman wisely and judiciously included funding in his bill for a
third Maritime Patrol Aircraft. This year, the subcommittee bill
includes a total of $15.25 million for the Maritime Patrol Aircraft
requirement. This amount, together with available balances from
previous appropriated funds for maritime patrol purposes, will enable
the Coast Guard to place the third CN-235 Maritime Patrol Aircraft
under contract and to fund long-lead items for the next series of CN-
235 aircraft to be purchased, thereby reducing the cost of these next
aircraft.
Mr. COCHRAN. As the Senator from Alabama is well aware, the Coast
Guard has been moving slowly on the Maritime Patrol Aircraft
Modernization pending a review of their requirements for specific types
of aircraft throughout the Coast Guard. I am very sensitive to the
Senator's concerns with this slow pace of Maritime Patrol Aircraft
modernization. I would say to the Senator, that I firmly believe and am
committed to the Coast Guard's modernization effort under the Deepwater
program, which includes the Maritime Patrol Aircraft requirement.
Mr. SHELBY. I thank the chairman for his support for the Maritime
Patrol Aircraft and the recognition of the importance of the CN-235 to
the Coast Guard's mission requirement to achieve maritime domain
awareness through aerial surveillance. Clearly, the security of the
United States is improved through any effective means to push our
borders farther out and extend our zone of security. The CN-235 is one
such effective method of extending our borders.
Mr. COCHRAN. I share the Senator's assessment that the extension of
our maritime surveillance is critical to our security interests. The
Coast Guard selected the CN-235 as the optimal solution for the
Maritime Patrol Aircraft mission and I continually encourage the
Commandant to aggressively pursue the modernization of all assets to
address the mission needs of the Coast Guard. It is clear that the
Maritime Patrol Aircraft requirement has been delayed due to the Coast
Guard review and I support any expedited effort to ensure that the
long-term maritime patrol mission requirement is addressed.
Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Senator for his time and attention and I
yield the floor.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, the pending Department of Homeland
Security appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2005, S. 2537 as reported
by the Senate Committee on Appropriations provides $32.867 billion in
budget authority and $30.736 billion in outlays in Fiscal Year 2005 for
the Department of Homeland Security. Of these totals, $867 million is
for mandatory programs in Fiscal Year 2005.
The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in Fiscal Year
2005, of $32 billion. This amount is $1.05 billion more than the
President's request, it matches the 302(b) allocations adopted by the
Senate Appropriations Committee, and is $2.812 billion more than Fiscal
Year 2004 enacted levels excluding Fiscal Year 2004 supplemental
appropriations.
I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee
for bringing this legislation before the Senate. I ask unanimous
consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

H.R. 4567, 2005 HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS
[Spending comparisons--Senate-reported bill (Fiscal Year 2005, $
millions)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
purpose  Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority.......................    32,000        867    32,867
Outlays................................    29,729        863    30,952
Senate committee allocation:
Budget authority.......................    32,000        867    32,867
Outlays................................    29,873        863    30,736
2004 Enacted:
Budget authority.......................    29,188      1,020    30,208
Outlays................................    26,771        850    27,621
President's request:
Budget authority.......................    30,950        867    31,817
Outlays................................    28,990        863    29,853
House-passed bill:
Budget authority.......................    32,000        867    32,867
Outlays................................    29,813        863    30,676
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE REPORTED BILL COMPARED AT:

Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority.......................  ........  .........  ........
Outlays................................      -144  .........      -144
2004 Enacted:
Budget authority.......................     2,812       -153     2,659
Outlays................................     2,958         13     2,971
President's request:
Budget authority.......................     1,050  .........     1,050
Outlays................................       739  .........       739
House-passed bill:
Budget authority.......................  ........  .........  ........
Outlays................................       -84  .........       -84
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

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

[[Page S8954]]

Intelligence Reform

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Madam President, there are now fewer than 72
hours from this hour, on this Wednesday afternoon, until we observe the
third anniversary of the terrorist attacks on this Nation when 19
hijackers took control of commercial airliners, converted them into
weapons, and struck the symbols of our economic and military might.
When the House and Senate Intelligence Committees began the Joint
Inquiry into the attacks of September 11, the first witness we called
in public session was Kristen Breitweiser. Kristen's husband Ronald,
who worked in the World Trade Center, was one of the 3,000 innocent
lives lost that day. In his memory, she helped found the family group
September 11th Advocates.
In her brave testimony, she described her husband's last words to
her. She described her daughter placing flowers on an empty grave. On
her right hand, she was wearing her husband's wedding band--charred,
scratched, but intact--recovered from Ground Zero with a part of her
husband's left arm.
Her testimony was deeply moving. Her closing words presented a call
to action. This is what she said:

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

As we debate the scope of reforms of our intelligence community, I
hope we will keep in mind the challenge laid down by Kristen
Breitweiser and the others whose lives have been touched by this
tragedy.
Today, and over the next several days, I want to discuss with my
colleagues the question of whether we have met her challenge. I, for
one, do not believe we have. And then we need to look at the question
of where do we go from here?
I will start my discussion this evening with a look at the history of
our intelligence efforts and what that history tells us about the
challenge of the future.
While America has understood the utility of intelligence since Paul
Revere's midnight ride from Boston to Lexington, warning that the
British were coming, America has never embraced intelligence. It was
contrary to a nation that had fought a 7-year war to secure liberty
from the very things that were the stock and trade of King George III's
intelligence gathering: the late night knock on the door to separate a
husband, father, or son from a frightened family; the use of torture to
discover the rebellious plans of patriots; the clandestine search of
private effects without notice or permission.
So it is of little surprise that the United States was the last
advanced nation in the world to establish a permanent civilian
intelligence agency--not until 1947--and that came only after two world
wars when we realized that a new era--the cold war--was dawning.
When the Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Union dissolved and the
cold war ended, we had lost our single clear enemy, and our
intelligence capabilities were allowed to wither.
There was no reliable and consistent source of funding for
intelligence agencies, and the agencies failed to anticipate and adapt
to the new threats of the 21st century.
That is clear from what we have come to know about the attacks of
September 11. All Americans now realize that in this new world, an
attack can come not only from an army of an enemy, but also in the form
of a boat, a backpack, or a vial.
Now all Americans realize that intelligence has become a crucial
shield, an evermore integral part of our national and personal
security.
In this century, effective intelligence will be more important than
it has ever been to this Nation for six reasons.

First, our adversary is different from any we have engaged in the
past. It is not a nation but a tribe of tribes united by an ideology.
The terrorists are not constrained by the global standards and values
of the West but are instead a foe for which death and an afterlife in
paradise are the highest goals of life. To know this enemy is essential
to defeating this enemy, and Americans will be dependent on effective
intelligence to gain that knowledge.
Second, we learned on September 11 that the Atlantic and Pacific are
not the protective barriers to our domestic security they have been in
the past.
Our new enemy was capable of insinuating 19 or more of its trained
killers into our Nation, where they were able to refine a plan,
practice and execute the most deadly attack on the continental United
States in our history, and to do all of that in anonymity.
America will look to alert intelligence to do what two oceans can no
longer do: protect us here at home.
Third, America can no longer abide by the rule of never striking
first, waiting only until we have been acted upon. The consequences of
waiting for threats to gather is too risky. But to be anticipatory, to
be preemptive, requires the highest quality of intelligence, or we risk
something else--the loss of lives of soldiers and civilians and the
loss of our global credibility.
If we are to adhere to a doctrine of preemption, we have to be
certain we know what it is we are preempting. We cannot afford to be
deceived, manipulated, or blinded by ideology, as we have been in Iraq,
or to waste time and resources fighting threats that are not real.
Fourth, sound intelligence will enhance our long-term security.
America's political, economic, and security interests now span the
globe. A vigilant intelligence community will alert us to emerging
threats against our interests beyond the homeland. Through both
strategic and actionable intelligence, we will be better able to
confront terrorist threats abroad before those threats materialize at
home.
But we face threats beyond terrorism--most especially the spread of
weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Accurate and
actionable intelligence is absolutely necessary if we are able to make
what many think is inevitable, an attack in the United States by
terrorists with nuclear weapons, preventable.
Fifth, effective intelligence is important to maintaining our
international relationships. Success in the 21st century will require
alliances with nations that share our vision and our values, if not our
views on all subjects. Credible information upon which wise judgments
can be founded must be the bedrock of those alliances.
Sixth and finally, with better intelligence, our Nation and its
leaders will be more able to focus on the challenges of the future
rather than the failures of the past. The pace of technological change
will only continue to accelerate, and the rising tide of globalization
will lead to a new and complex web of relationships between state and
nonstate actors. Better intelligence will help us keep up with the pace
of change as we continue to identify new challenges.
For all of these reasons, in the 21st century, intelligence will have
a role to play in almost every way we seek to provide greater security
at home and advance our interests abroad.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the list
of amendments I will send to the desk be the only first-degree
amendments in order to the bill; provided further that they be subject
to second degrees that are relevant to the first degrees; finally, that
all other provisions of the previous order governing this bill remain
in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The list is as follows:

[[Page S8955]]

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

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

____________________