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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time having
arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 4567, which the
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

Pending:

Nelson (FL) Amendment No. 3607, to provide funds for the
American Red Cross.
Schumer Amendment No. 3615, to appropriate $100,000,000 to
establish an identification and tracking system for HAZMAT
trucks and a background check system for commercial driver
licenses.
Reid (for Lautenberg) Amendment No. 3617, to ensure that
the Coast guard has sufficient resources for its traditional
core missions.
Corzine Amendment No. 3619, to appropriate an additional
$100,000,000 to enhance the security of chemical plants.

Amendment No. 3624

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

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

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am going to speak about the compelling
needs that our local fire departments have.
All of us, over the weekend, went to events commemorating September
11, 2001. We all spoke about how much we admired those men and women
who stood up to defend the Nation, including those very brave first
responders at the World Trade Center who dashed up over 75 floors in
burning buildings to try to rescue people. They put themselves on the
line, and many of them, as we know, perished on that horrible day.
Here in the Washington, DC area, as we know, the Pentagon was hit. We
in Maryland had 60 Marylanders die that day. We had some die at the
World Trade Center, but the majority were at the Pentagon. Some died on
the airplanes. We had people die on those airlines, including a flight
attendant who gave her life and was one of the people who tried to deal
with the situation. We had others who died on those planes, such as a
family who was leaving on a sabbatical--a husband and wife who were
academics, with their two children. Again, we had people die at the
Pentagon, such as one young man from Baltimore who was a financial
analyst over at the Pentagon. Of those from Maryland who died at the
Pentagon, 24 came from one county, Prince George's County. They were
primarily African-Americans who worked in this financial services area
of the Pentagon. Imagine, 24 people, such as Odessa Morris who had just
celebrated her 25th anniversary; or Max Bielke, who had been in the
military and when he retired, he went back to work as a civilian
employee because he loved it. He was the last man to leave Vietnam. He
stamped all the papers at our embassy there. He was the last soldier
out of Vietnam. So we mourn that day.
At the same time, we were proud of the Maryland response. I was
particularly proud of the Chevy Chase rescue team. This is a volunteer
fire department in Montgomery County that dashed across the Potomac
under the doctrine of mutual aid to provide firefighting assistance on
that horrible day, joining with our local fire departments from
Northern Virginia and Rescue One from Chevy Chase, and stayed on the
scene in order to be able to quell the fires that continued to burn.
They were part of a FEMA search and rescue unit and they provided help.
They were the ones who brought in the dogs to look for survivors. They
were there night and day for several days and weeks.
I was very proud of the Chevy Chase fire fighters and of all our fire
departments in Maryland who went up to the World Trade Center to dig in
the wreckage to see if they could find any survivors. We know the story
about what happened at the World Trade Center. Again, the Chevy Chase
Fire Department is a volunteer fire department. They serve their
community and country on their own time and their own dime. It cost the
Chevy Chase Fire Department over $300,000 to be able to be on the job.
They did it willingly, unstintingly. Yet at the same time, we know
those local fire departments cannot continue to function when we go on
Orange Alert, and they continue on their own time and on their own
dime.
One of the great things we created was the Fire Grant Program. The
Fire Grant Program was an invention before 9/11 of Senator Kit Bond and
me as part of a FEMA reform package, along with Congressmen Hoyer and
Weldon in the House. We did it in a bipartisan effort to make sure our
fire departments--particularly our volunteer fire departments--had the
right equipment they needed to protect the protector, and also the
updated technology to be able to protect us.
When we created that program as part of FEMA, well before September
11, 2001, it was authorized at $300 million. At the same time, what we
know is that when we did that--after 9/11, the need was so compelling,
working, again, on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, we authorized a fire
grant program at $900 million. What else do we know? We know there is
compelling need. We know the fire administration, just in 2003,
received almost 20,000 applications totaling $2.5 billion in funding
requests for local fire departments.

Imagine that. The fire administration received requests for $2.5
billion.

[[Page S9109]]

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

It is the same with the Kensington volunteer fire department in
Montgomery County. We replaced a pumper truck that is dated to 1979. I
could go all around the State of Maryland.
The amendment speaks for itself. Senator Cochran still is not here. I
am sure the Senator is tied up. We have worked together on many
occasions.
First, I really have enjoyed working with him on appropriations, on
national security issues. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Homeland Security, it has been a delight to work with him.
My amendment is very straightforward. What it does is raise the Fire
Grant program to its fully authorized level of $900 million.
As I have stated, the amendment speaks for itself. It increases the
money to $900 million, the authorized level. We believe the amendment
is warranted because, as I have said, the Fire Administration received
requests totaling $2.5 billion, and since we cannot fund it at $2.5
billion, I believe we need to take this important step and fund it at
the $900 million level.
The amendment speaks for itself. I now turn to the Democratic whip
and ask him how should we proceed? I would like to offer my amendment.
I would like to get a vote on my amendment. Should I ask for the yeas
and nays now?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, through the Chair to the distinguished
Senator from Maryland, we have a number of votes we are going to try to
get lined up for later this evening. It is my suggestion that the
Senator ask for the yeas and nays, and then at a subsequent time, we
will figure out when we are going to vote on it.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I say to the Presiding Officer, to
Senator Cochran, and to the whip, I would like to work with them in a
way that would create the orderly disposition of my amendment.
I will withhold any rights to seek the yeas and nays. Is that an
appropriate request?
Mr. REID. That is appropriate
Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, through the Chair to the Senator from
Massachusetts, I am wondering if the Senator from Massachusetts would
withhold his recognition, following a very brief statement by the
Senator from Nebraska who wishes to offer an amendment and then speak.
It should take just a few minutes.
I ask unanimous consent that following the statement of the Senator
from Nebraska, the Senator from Massachusetts regain the floor.

[[Page S9110]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nebraska.

Amendment No. 3625

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will make one further point on this subject. It is my understanding
that an amendment may be offered that affects the funding formula for
the State homeland security grant program. Currently, 38 percent of
SHSGP funds are dispersed based upon a minimum funding formula, and the
remaining 62 percent are dispersed to states based upon population. As
I understand it, the amendment that may be offered would require the
Department of Homeland Security to change the 62 percent portion of the
funds from a population based formula into a high threat and population
density formula.
As someone who comes from a rural State, I plan to oppose this
amendment and hope that my colleagues from smaller States and rural
areas will do the same.
The proposed funding formula would have the effect of shifting a lot
of the current funding from the smaller states and sending it to our
largest States that meet loosely defined criteria such as threat,
vulnerability, and the presence of critical infrastructure.
I wholeheartedly support funding for the first responder efforts in
our major metropolitan areas, which is why I strongly support the
current Urban Area Security Initiative program, which sends extra
funding to these large areas. But I do not support paying for these
programs by shifting funds away from our rural, less-populated states.
Nebraska would lose $8 million under this proposed formula. I can't
tell you how critical that is to a state like Nebraska and to all the
communities in Nebraska that are trying to follow through on the
preparedness plans the Department of Homeland Security asked them to
implement. And a shift in formula like this one would pull the rug out
from under them.
One needs to only look at the most recent terrorist attack in Russia
and see that this attack was in a school in a rural area, and it is
easy to understand that we must not be lulled into thinking that the
rural areas are not going to be affected by any kind of terrorist
activity.
Our country is only as safe as our weakest vulnerability. The State
Homeland Security Grant Program has already been cut by 45 percent in
this bill. Shifting funds away from our less populated states will
further exacerbate the problem. We need to make sure every part of the
country is prepared, regardless of location.
I thank my friend from Massachusetts for his courtesy, and I yield
the floor.

Amendment No. 3625, Withdrawn

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

Amendment No. 3626

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

[[Page S9111]]

The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly, before we act on intelligence reform later this month,
Congress should have benefit of General Scowcroft's recommendations as
well. Congress faces a major task in reorganizing the intelligence
community, at this time when the threats against our Nation are new and
different. We must have the best information, advice and wisdom on this
challenge, including a copy of the Scowcroft Commission report.
General Scowcroft, I am told, will be talking to Members of the
Senate Intelligence Committee this week in closed session about the
report. But the meeting is for committee members only, is classified,
and is off-the-record. I understand that none of the committee members
will be permitted to read the report.
Frankly, that is ridiculous. Every Member of Congress has an interest
in being well-informed before voting on intelligence reform. Every
American has an interest too. The 9/11 Commission's report and its 41
recommendations are not classified, and General Scowcroft's should not
be classified either.
Congress should not be forced to rely on sketchy press reports for
information on an issue with such important consequences for our
National security and our ability too fight the al-Qaida terrorists. It
is irresponsible for the administration to keep Congress in the dark.
We hope to complete action on legislation to implement the 9/11
Commission recommendations before we adjourn. Given the enormous stakes
for our Nation, it is unconscionable that the President has not already
made an unclassified copy of the Scowcroft report available to us.
There is bipartisan support for release of the Scowcroft Commission
report and recommendations. In July, the Democratic leader asked the
President to declassify the report. During an August 16 Senate Armed
Services Committees hearing on the 9/11 Commission recommendations,
Senator Warner, our distinguished Chairman, indicated that the Congress
should have the report. He said:

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

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

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

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

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

Why does the administration refuse to declassify the report and make
it available to Congress? Why would the

[[Page S9112]]

administration knowingly put the Congress in the position of acting on
an intelligence reform proposal with enormous consequences for our
National security, without having an unclassified copy of this crucial
report?
The obvious reason is that the administration is desperate to avoid
embarrassment about the President's mishandling of intelligence reform.
The Scowcroft report and recommendations are nearly 3 years old. They
were submitted to President Bush in December 2001--just 3 months after
the devastating attacks on September 11. Now, finally, we are about to
enact long-overdue reforms to enable our intelligence community to deal
more effectively with terrorist threats and other threats to our
security.
The President needs to come clean. He should release a declassified
copy of the report to the Congress so we can act responsibly on
intelligence reform. The American people can decide for themselves
whether the President has dragged his feet on intelligence reform for
nearly 3 years, despite his current rhetoric about the need for change.
I urge the President to declassify the Scowcroft Commission report
immediately, and that is what my amendment would do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we appreciate very much the Senator's
amendment and discussion of the Scowcroft Commission report and whether
the contents of that report should be declassified. That is, as I
understand it, the purpose of the amendment, to make that information
public.
What I hope we can do in the consideration of this appropriations
bill is to keep our attention focused on the funding of the Department
of Homeland Security activities. That is the purpose of this
appropriations bill. We have worked very hard with colleagues on the
Appropriations Committee to identify priorities. We fully considered
the President's budget request on issues surrounding funding levels. We
know we do not have unlimited budget authority. We are limited by an
allocation from the full Committee on Appropriations in the Senate.
I hope we defer this issue to the consideration of the authorizing
committee. The Intelligence Committee has this issue under review. As a
matter of fact, this issue has already been raised, as I understand it,
in hearings that are being held in consideration of the so-called 9/11
Commission recommendations. We have had that report before the Senate.
There are a number of other committees looking into these issues.
But the Appropriations Committee is trying to get funds approved by
the Congress to fund the Department of Homeland Security needs for this
next fiscal year beginning October 1.
I don't know whether the Senator wants a vote on his amendment, or
maybe at the appropriate time after other Senators have had an
opportunity to discuss their views, if they so choose, we could move to
table the amendment. That would be my suggestion, that we remove that
amendment from this bill and let it be handled by some other committee.
I am sympathetic with the concerns the Senator has expressed, but I
really do not think we ought to convert the consideration of an
appropriations bill into consideration of whether to declassify or not
the Scowcroft Commission report. That is my reaction to the amendment.
I hope the Senate will consider our views.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator allow me to respond?
Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think the Senator is quite correct in
terms of understanding that with an appropriations bill there are rules
about whether we have legislation, et cetera, on appropriations, and
that is done for good reason. The Senator has outlined some thoughts.
The authorization, as the Senator knows, has already been passed and is
now in conference.
Let me mention this point, because we looked very carefully at this
issue.
The Scowcroft Commission deals with the amendment. There is the
requirement that all amendments be related to the text of homeland
security. The Scowcroft Commission report deals with collection,
analysis, and dissemination of intelligence. The Department of Homeland
Security plays an important role in these matters, and the Office of
the Under Secretary for Information, Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection is funded in this bill. On page 74, it says it is
responsible for collecting and disseminating terrorist threat
information, fusing and integrating data with foreign intelligence to
produce a comprehensive picture of threat, and developing and
implementing an action plan to mitigate terrorist threats and national
vulnerabilities. The Scowcroft report addresses issues that would have
a substantial impact on the way this office and all intelligence
officials at the Department of Homeland Security conduct their work,
and the quality of intelligence to a large extent determines whether
the Department of Homeland Security is able to perform its mission and
protect the public from future terrorists.
On page 29 of the bill, $157 million is provided for intelligence
functions in the Office of Director of Information, Analysis and
Infrastructure in the Department of Homeland Security.
Then section 504 of the bill specifically provides funds made
available by this act for intelligence activities are determined to be
specifically authorized by the Congress.
This is legislative language authorizing the operation of a portion
of the intelligence community.
I want to say to the Senator that we thought long and hard about the
appropriateness of this amendment. Reading through the legislation
itself, it appeared these matters were directly in line with a number
of at least some portions of the Scowcroft Commission report.
Particularly since we have such a sense of urgency in ensuring that we
are going to try to get it right with the recommendations of the 9/11
Commission and the Scowcroft report, given the fact, as I mentioned
earlier, that Secretary Rumsfeld, Chairman Warner, Chairman Roberts all
indicated they thought it would be of use and value, it seemed to me
this could be something we can all get behind and support.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his further
comments to the Senate.
I also at this time would like to propound a unanimous consent
request which I understand has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.
The distinguished leader from Nevada is here on the floor.
I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the vote in
relation to the Schumer amendment this evening, the Senate proceed to a
vote in relation to the Lautenberg amendment No. 3617; provided further
that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally
divided for debate prior to each vote.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding the
first vote will occur at 5:30 or 5:15.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 5:30.
Mr. REID. And it is my further understanding there has been consent
entered that Senator Schumer could modify his amendment; is that true?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may modify his amendment.

Amendment No. 3615, as Modified

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

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

Ground Transportation

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
Senator from Mississippi?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, thank you.
(The remarks of Mr. Conrad pertaining to the submission of S. Con.

[[Page S9113]]

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

Amendment No. 3615, As Further Modified

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

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

Ground Transportation

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

Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, at 5:30, we are going to be voting in the
Senate on a motion to table the Schumer amendment. The Senator
described his amendment recently and talked about the fact that the
Department of Homeland Security has not done anything, essentially, to
protect against the explosives or other dangers occurring when trucks
with hazardous material are driven throughout the country, and that an
additional $70 million, I think, is the total amount of new money to be
added to this bill for this purpose.
It is described in the Senator's amendment as a tracking system for
hazardous material trucks, hazmat trucks, and a background check system
for commercial drivers' licenses.
I am suggesting to the Senate that this is an additional $70 million
that cannot be efficiently used for this purpose in 1 fiscal year, and
I am going to tell you why.
The Appropriations Committee has already provided funding for a
number of different programs designed to accomplish the goals that the
Senator has described in his comments about and his description of his
amendment when he previously offered it.
Last year, in fiscal year 2004, Congress appropriated $9.4 million
for an effort to develop a high-explosive countermeasure system in the
Science and Technology Directorate. Research is being undertaken and a
program that will follow on is funded at $33.590 million to provide
technologies and programs that would interdict explosive attacks
against buildings from all modes of transportation, including trucking.
It is also designed to protect critical infrastructure and the Nation's
civilian population. This is an increase of $23.89 million from the
budget request submitted by the administration.
We have tried to communicate with the Transportation Security
Administration and other agencies of the Department of Homeland
Security to see what funds could be utilized to help make this the most
sophisticated and effective system available to the American public in
protecting buildings, protecting civilian populations, protecting the
trucking systems and the infrastructure of our country against problems
of vehicle bombs, problems of hazardous materials being confiscated and
converted into explosives to damage infrastructure: highways, tunnels,
bridges, buildings, and the like.
So the Homeland Security Advanced Research Project Agency is issuing
a broad agency announcement for systems for vehicle bomb detection
using optical and nuclear thermal neutron analysis. The Science and
Technology Directorate is piloting several sites using different means
for detecting vehicle bombs at checkpoints. There are other initiatives
to deny terrorists the use of commercial explosives and materials for
making such bombs.
So across the board, what I am saying, there is a broad indepth,
comprehensive effort underway and using a variety of technologies and
programs that seek to achieve, and will achieve, the goal suggested by
the Senator from New York.

[[Page S9114]]

We do not need to adopt this amendment to accomplish the goal he
talks about that we need to pursue. We are doing what the Senator has
suggested should be done.
There is a Hazardous Material Shipper Training Program in place for
drivers and others who are involved as employees in that industry,
providing information about security requirements and responsibilities
of those engaged in the trucking industry. It is promoting security
awareness for each mode of transportation, not just truckers but other
shippers as well.
Funds have been provided in the 2004 appropriations bill to test
certain technologies, new technologies to track high-risk trucks on the
Nation's highways. The Senator said there is no program such as that in
place. Programs are being tested to be implemented. We want to be sure
the Transportation Security Administration has the ability to track
vehicles throughout the entire country, in Alaska and Hawaii as well,
to identify the best practices and the standards and regulations that
ought to be implemented and enforced by Federal, State, local, and
industry stakeholders as well.
Congress has provided over $42 million for the Highway Watch Program
to promote security awareness among all segments of the commercial
motor carrier industry and the transportation community at large. For
this fiscal year, in this bill that is before the Senate, $15 million
is provided for this program.
For the previous 2 fiscal years, $12 million has been provided for
the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration to test and evaluate a variety of
technologies, such as global positioning systems, wireless
communications, use of global positioning satellites, alarm systems,
biometric identification, and radio frequency identification devices to
ensure that dangerous or potentially dangerous vehicles are identified.
Field testing has just been completed, and the evaluation phase in
this program has begun. These are steps toward the goal that we all
share, and that is identified by the Senator from New York as a very
imminent and urgent need. It is an urgent need, and we are treating it
as such over the prior appropriations bill's approval and provisions,
as well as this year's appropriations bill.
There was a mandate in the PATRIOT Act that the Transportation
Security Administration has implemented, in partnership with the
departments in the State motor vehicle area, to ensure that all drivers
who are licensed to transport hazardous materials are subjected to
Federal background checks to be sure the people who are operating these
vehicles ought to be operating them; that they are not high-risk
people; that they do not have something in their background that raises
alarms about their dependability.
The Transportation Security Administration has undertaken background
checks on 2.7 million drivers who have hazardous materials endorsements
on their commercial driver's licenses. These background checks have
identified approximately 36 individuals who are no longer allowed to
transport hazardous materials. TSA will complete this background check,
and when it is completed they will have conducted name-based background
checks on all 3.5 million drivers this year. There will be an FBI
fingerprint-based criminal history check undertaken as well.
The offset would affect the Office of Under Secretary of Management's
Human Resources Division.
In terms of research, what I am suggesting is that every effort
possible is being made, through grants provided by the Department of
Homeland Security, technology development, and deployment in the
department, to develop a more efficient system for identifying drivers
to be sure they are trustworthy and are not threats to the Nation's
security through the operation of vehicles carrying hazardous
materials, the confiscation of vehicles that are carrying hazardous
materials or that could be converted into bombmaking vehicles. All of
this is being done in an aggressive and comprehensive way by the
Department of Homeland Security, in cooperation with State and local
authorities throughout the country.
Private sector groups, shippers who are undertaking to safeguard the
content of packages that go into vehicles, are also very actively
involved in helping ensure that the public is not going to be put in
danger through the use of our transportation system in this way.
We think the provisions of the bill are adequate. To provide funding
that the Senator is suggesting is needed will be wasteful and cannot be
efficiently used for the purposes he seeks. The goals are notable and
laudable. We share them and we are doing everything we can to ensure
that we have in place the programs, training, research, and
technologies that we need to protect ourselves from these kinds of
attacks and attacks against the Nation's critical infrastructure and
population centers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Mississippi for
his graciousness in allowing this amendment to be modified. I agree
with him that we have the same goals, but our analysis of how well we
are progressing toward those goals is woefully inadequate.
I want to make clear what the amendment seeks to do because there
have been some concerns raised by the American Trucking Association and
some truck firms. To address those concerns, which I did not think were
real, I modified the amendment to make that clear. Here is what the
amendment does not do: It does not require that members of the trucking
industry purchase GPS systems for their truck fleets. It does not
require trucking companies to present plans to TSA of current truck
routes throughout the country.
My amendment simply provides the TSA with the resources to begin
looking into how we go about monitoring what has been shown to us as a
vulnerability within our existing plan to secure our country from
terrorist threats. I know the ATA, which has resisted any regulation of
the trucking industry, has raised some concerns, but their concerns are
either incorrect or shortsighted.
My amendment provides the TSA with flexibility and much needed funds
to address truck security and has none of the mandates or high costs
that have been talked about. Both the TSA and DOT, I will agree with my
friend from Mississippi, are currently working on improving and
expanding truck-tracking systems and background checks for commercial
driver's licenses with the HAZMAT endorsement. But let me suggest
something. Here is the plan. First, they were doing nothing, and a
year, a year and a half ago, I prodded and prodded. So now the plan is
that any new application for a HAZMAT license will be checked out, a
background check will be given. The problem is, all existing licenses
will not be checked until they are renewed.
Since most States have 5-year renewal periods, we are not going to
check many of these licenses until 2007, 2008, 2009, even 2010.
When one asks the TSA why they are not doing it more quickly, they
say one word: Money. We do not have the money.
It is hardly believable that $10 million here or $9.4 million there,
which is spread across a whole lot of programs and research, will be
enough. So the bottom line is, we agree that we have to do this, but I
would rather err on the side of making sure we get it done quickly,
given that the terrorists have said--at least with al-Qaida--that truck
bombs are a preferred weapon. Every one of us knows what has happened.
We have not provided the money we need in homeland security, whether it
is truck security or anything else. We slow-walk these programs.
To say that somebody could have a hazardous material license and be
on a terrorist watch list and we will not catch up to them until 2010
makes no sense. When TSA says they have not done this or not done it
quickly because they do not have the money, what we do is provide them
the money. There is an offset, an offset from a pot of money that
simply says let us outsource some structural personnel reorganizing.
It amazes me that we could spend $70 million for that but only $15
million for the whole program of truck security.
As for the GPS system, it is needed. We do not mandate it because we,
like our friend from Mississippi, are not

[[Page S9115]]

sure exactly the best way to go. But we sure want TSA to come up with a
plan quickly and figure out how to do it and not impose the costs on
the trucking industry if need be.
Here in America, a lot of companies put in a GPS system on their own,
not to deal with terrorism but to deal with stolen trucks.
I remind my colleagues that a truck carrying hazardous material is
missing, gone, from Pennsauken, NJ, not far from my city, and we still
do not know where it is. We do not know what has been done with it. In
all likelihood, it was stolen for mercenary purposes. But can we afford
the risk that the next truck is stolen for terrorist purposes?
Simply training with the ATA program, which trains truck drivers on
safety in terms of terrorism, does not deal with the fact that a
terrorist might wish to steal a truck, hijack a truck, use a truck. All
the training programs of good drivers, legitimate drivers in the world
will not deal with that, and that is why we believe these other steps
are so needed.
The bottom line is this is not a whole lot of money. This is a
serious threat. It is offset. There are no mandates. Again, I say to my
colleagues, we do not wish to wake up one morning and say: What if--God
forbid there was a terrible incident--we had done more and allocated
the money needed?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 5:30 having arrived, there will be
2 minutes equally divided.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to table the Schumer amendment. I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thought there were 2 minutes remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator would have to withhold his motion
to table.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that in spite of the motion by the
Senator from Mississippi, there be 2 minutes equally divided on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the American Trucking Association has
delivered a letter to me. It is signed by 34 organizations or
industries that are concerned that the passage of the Schumer amendment
would result in an enormous burden on our national economic recovery,
that it would impose enormous costs on many industries, that it would
force haulers to undertake expensive new activities that have not been
approved or suggested by the Transportation Security Administration as
necessary or as improvements to the security systems now in place. This
is a three-page letter. Rather than have it read into the Record, I ask
unanimous consent the letter, dated September 13, addressed to me, be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

American Trucking Associations,

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

backgroiund checks

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

hazardous materials are critical to the u.s. economy

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

global positioning satellite mandate

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

written route plan requirement

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

fmcsa study pending

(the amendment is premature)

In his floor statement introducing his amendment, Senator
Schumer argued for the implementation of ``global positioning
satellite (GPS)'' technology to track all truck shipments of
hazardous materials. Respectfully, the Senator's proposal is
premature and may frustrate the development of more effective
and less costly alternatives.
It is important that the Senator be aware of a current
research project, which began almost a year ago, under the
auspices of the Department of Transportation's Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration. That project, referred to as
the ``Field Operations Test'' (FOT), involves the testing and
evaluation of a variety of technologies including

[[Page S9116]]

GPS, wireless communications, global positioning satellites,
``panic buttons and alarms'', ``geo-fencing'', biometric
identification and radio frequency identification devices.
The field testing has just been completed, and, the
evaluation phase has already begun. Already, SAIC and Batelle
have produced a multi-volume draft report which has been
circulated (on a limited basis) to security specialists
within both government and industry.
The Senate should pause until the evaluation and reports
are complete, and final recommendations have been submitted
to both the Department of Transportation and the Department
of Homeland Security.
We urge you to defeat the Schumer amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
Agricultural Retailers Association
American Chemistry Council
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Petroleum Institute
American Pyrotechnics Association
American Trucking Associations
Chlorine Chemistry Council
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
Compressed Gas Association
Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles
The Chlorine Institute
Dangerous Goods Advisory Council
The Fertilizer Institute
Institute of Makers of Explosives
Industrial Packaging Alliance of North America
International Vessel Operators Hazardous Materials
Association
International Warehouse Logistics Association
National Association of Chemical Distributors
National Association of Convenience Stores
National Association of Manufacturers
National Association of Truck Stop Operators
National Paint & Coatings Association
National Private Truck Council
National Propane Gas Association
National Tank Truck Carriers
Nuclear Energy Institute
Petroleum Marketers Association of America
Radiopharmaceuticals Shippers & Carriers Conference
Reusable Industrial Packaging Association
Steel Shipping Container Institute
Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America
Truckload Carriers Association
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group.

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 173 Leg.]

YEAS--55

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

NAYS--34

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

NOT VOTING--11

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

Amendment No. 3617

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Under the previous order,
there will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided on the Lautenberg
amendment.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by
Senator Corzine and me. The amendment simply adds $100 million to
ensure that the Coast Guard is going to have adequate funding for its
nonhomeland security measures.
It is interesting; we fund Iraq's coast guard, and now the Iraqi
Coastal Defense Force is receiving U.S. tax dollars for Chinese-built
boats and crew training. If we can find money for Iraq's coast guard,
then surely we can adequately fund our own Coast Guard. They perform
services that are essential.
We need to add this funding because GAO found that the Coast Guard
has to dip into its nonhomeland budget during times of elevated
security alert. That means missions such as search and rescue,
protecting our fisheries, ice-breaking operations, marine pollution,
migrants, drug interdiction, and other law enforcement issues as well.
The amendment is still $150 million less than the amount authorized
in the Coast Guard bill signed into law just last month by the
President. I urge my colleagues to look at their coastline and decide
whether they ought to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment offers to add a
substantial amount of money to the operational budget of the U.S. Coast
Guard. I remind Senators that the Coast Guard's total appropriation in
this next fiscal year is $705 million above last year's appropriation.
It is about $134 million above the President's request for overall U.S.
Coast Guard activity. We urge the Senate to vote no against the
Lautenberg amendment.
I make a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional
Budget Act that the amendment provides spending in excess of the
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

[[Page S9117]]

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable
sections of the Congressional Budget Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator seek the yeas and nays?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Brownback), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell), the Senator from
Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg),
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Voinovich), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from North Carolina
(Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) are necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 38, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 174 Leg.]

YEAS--38

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

NAYS--50

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

NOT VOTING--12

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

Amendment No. 3621

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

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

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

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

On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
Sec. 515. Of the amount appropriated by title II for the
Office of the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation
Security under the heading ``air and marine interdiction,
operations, maintenance, and procurement'', $5,000,000 may be
used for a pilot project to test interoperable communications
between the first Northern Border Air Wing, Bellingham,
Washington, and local law enforcement personnel.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment I just called up has been
agreed to on both sides. It simply allows our northern Air Guard to be
able to communicate with those on the ground and use available funds.
I have talked with the managers on both sides, and I believe the
amendment is agreed to. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we reviewed the amendment offered by the
Senator from Washington. We agree to support it, and we ask the Senate
to adopt it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3621) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are at a point in the deliberations
that I think we can be pleased with the progress we have made so far
last week as well as today. We hope to be able to push ahead and
complete action on this bill tomorrow evening. That is the expectation
of the leadership. But I know we have a number of amendments that
Senators are preparing to offer tomorrow. There are also four
amendments that we have had discussion on which have not yet been
disposed of. But in view of the fact we have made such good progress
and there are other activities that are important to Senators off the
floor at this point in the evening, it is my hope that we will go into
morning business and let the leadership decide how long that will be.
I thank my friend from Nevada, who has been very helpful in handling
the bill on the floor, along with our other leaders on our side of the
aisle as well, particularly Senator Frist, the majority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have tonight a couple of amendments,
maybe even three, that people could offer. I talked with Senator
Dayton, and he said he wants to offer one which will take 5 minutes. It
is up to the manager whether he wants to do that tonight or tomorrow.
We also have two Feingold amendments that should be accepted, we
understand, and a Levin amendment. It is up to the manager.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are happy to stay here as long as
there is business to be transacted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, since I last spoke on the Senate floor
about how we should proceed on this bill, or made suggestions, I have
learned that the House leadership has said they are going to spend all
week looking at the next supplemental dealing with Florida.
Whether that is the case or not, I do not know. All I know is that is
what they have said. I again ask the majority to take a close look at
what we are doing. Let us finish Homeland Security appropriations and
worry about Florida--and I realize it takes a lot of worrying because
they have had calamities that are untoward in our history, but let us
get rid of this Homeland Security bill. I say that in a positive sense.
We have made good progress. I think the amendments have been listed.
We can get rid of these, and again I hate to use a term like that--we
can dispose of these amendments. We can adopt and accept some of them.
I think we could do it even maybe tomorrow evening. But if we are going
to complicate this matter with the supplemental appropriations, it is
going to make things real tough to finish this bill.
I am here only to serve the body and do whatever I can to move things
along. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

Amendment No. 3629

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

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

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

[[Page S9118]]

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

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

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

At 5:25 p.m., I received stated objections from someone at the
Federal Protective Service purporting to represent the official
response of the Department of Homeland Security. Once again, the
existing Federal agency at the last minute has objections to the
legislation that could have been presented to me today, last week,
whenever. My staff has been in discussion with the majority and the
minority staff on the committee for the last few days. Less than 2
hours ago, to receive from the agency involved their stated objections
that they will use, I assume to try to defeat this amendment, I find to
be offensive.
They, once again, presume that because they have this authorizing
legislation that grants the Secretary unilateral, complete, absolute
power to make these changes in people's contracts that affect their
lives, that affect their families, they do not even need to bother to
respond to proposed legislation, which is exactly the reason this
should not have been passed to begin with; exactly the reason employees
should have due process; exactly the reason this ought to be in
contract bargaining procedures so that those changes that are going to
be made have to go through a negotiation or discussion with the elected
representatives of those affected employees.
We have gone too far in creating this department and giving that
unilateral authority to any single individual. This is a step back in
the proper direction that is not in any way going to affect the
national security of this country. In fact, I take that back. It will
only enhance the national security of this country, of the Federal
employees in the Federal buildings such as in Minnesota and the
citizens who go to those buildings to meet with their elected
representatives because they will be better qualified, better trained,
more capable people, including those who now hold those jobs, except
for those who have been forced to leave those jobs. So there will be
better national security at a lower cost to the taxpayer when the
retraining and other ancillary costs are included.
The only one that will be adversely affected by this will be the
private employer who is underbid and is trying to extract additional
profits out of the economic security of those employees and the public
security of those they protect.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his suggestion of
this change. As I understand the amendment, it would limit the
appropriation provided in this bill by restricting the opportunities
for the Federal Protective Service to enter into certain contracts. It
imposes conditions under which they can engage in contract activities
for protective services at Federal building sites.
I am advised by the Federal Protective Service, which is under the
Department of Homeland Security, that this is an amendment not
supported by the administration. There are those who are involved in
helping to safeguard the security of Federal buildings and other
facilities. They have limited resources which they say would be
significantly diverted from the primary mission of providing the
professional, qualified, and capable security guard service according
to contracts and the needs of individual locations. The restrictive
language of the amendment is counterproductive to the progress the
Federal Protective Service has made.
So the argument that I have to make and that I am happy to make is
that this amendment should not be included in this legislation, and we
would be forced to resist it. I will urge my colleagues to vote against
it at the appropriate time.
The leadership has indicated, I think, either formally or informally,
that there will be no further rollcall votes this evening, so this is
an issue that would have to go over until tomorrow,

[[Page S9119]]

and we will be happy to discuss the details more fully tomorrow so that
all Senators are aware of the impact this amendment would have on the
Federal Protective Service and its ability to do its job.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set
aside so that other matters may be brought up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there is a matter I can bring to the
attention of the Senate, a modification of an amendment that has
already been adopted.

Amendment No. 3618, As Modified

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

On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following new
section:
``Sec. __. (a) The total amount appropriated under the
heading ``customs and border protection, salaries and
expenses'' is hereby increased by $150,000,000. Of such total
amount, as so increased, $50,000,000 is provided for
radiation detection devices, $50,000,000 is provided for
additional border inspectors, and $50,000,000 is provided for
additional border patrol agents.
``(b) The total amount appropriated under the heading
``immigration and customs enforcement, salaries and
expenses'' is hereby increased by $100,000,000. Of such total
amount, as so increased, $50,000,000 is provided for
additional investigator personnel, and $50,000,000 is
provided for detention and removal bedspace and removal
operations.
``(c) The total amount appropriated under the heading
``office of state and local government coordination and
preparedness, state and local programs'' is hereby increased
by $128,000,000. The total amount provided in the
aforementioned heading for discretionary grants is increased
by $128,000,000. Of that total amount as so increased, the
amount for rail and transit security grants is increased by
$128,000,000.
``(d) The total amount appropriated under the heading
``office of state and local government coordination and
preparedness, emergency management performance grants'' is
hereby increased by $36,000,000. Of such total amount, as so
increased, $36,000,000 is provided for emergency management
performance grants.
``(e) Section 13031(j)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconcillation Act of 1985 as amended by this bill,
strike ``June 1, 2005'' and insert ``September 30, 2005.''

Amendments Nos. 3585, 3602 and 3620, En Bloc

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

amendment no. 3585

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

On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
Sec. 515. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall--
(1) develop and maintain an integrated strategic
transportation security plan; and
(2) base future budget requests on the plan.
(b) The integrated strategic transportation security plan
shall--
(1) identify and evaluate the United States transportation
assets that need to be protected;
(2) set risk-based priorities for defending the assets
identified;
(3) select the most practical and cost-effective ways of
defending the assets identified; and
(4) assign transportation security roles and missions to
the relevant Federal, State, regional, and local authorities
and to the private sector.
(c) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit the
integrated strategic transportation security plan to Congress
not later than February 1, 2005 and shall submit updated
plans, including assessments of the progress made on
implementation of the plan, on the first day of February each
year thereafter. Any part of the plan that involves
information that is properly classified under criteria
established by Executive order shall be submitted to Congress
separately in classified form.

amendment no. 3602

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

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

amendment no. 3620

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

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

AMENDMENT NO. 3602

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the amendment that I am offering today
would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit to Congress
a report on the amount of goods acquired by the Department during
fiscal year 2005 that were made overseas.
I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the
subcommittee for working with me to include this important provision in
the bill.
My amendment would extend for another year with respect to the
Department of Homeland Security a provision that was enacted as part of
the fiscal year 2004 omnibus spending bill requiring all Federal
departments and agencies to submit to Congress a report about goods
that they purchase that are made outside of the United States. These
reports will improve the disclosure of the amount of foreign-made goods
purchased by the federal government.
My amendment, like current law, requires that this report include the
following information: (a) the dollar value of any articles, materials,
or supplies purchased that are manufactured outside of the United
States; (b) an itemized list of all waivers of the Buy American Act
granted with respect to such articles, materials, or supplies, and (c)
a summary of total procurement funds spent on goods manufactured in the
United States versus funds spent on goods manufactured outside of the
United States.
The amendment also requires that the report be made publicly
available to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the enactment earlier this year of the Government-wide Buy
American reporting requirement that I authored, only the Department of
Defense was required to report annually on its use of waivers of
domestic procurement laws. Last year, I introduced legislation to
strengthen the Buy American Act of 1933, the statute that governs
procurement by the Federal Government. The name of the Act accurately
and succinctly describes its purpose: to ensure that the Federal
Government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying

[[Page S9120]]

American-made goods. One part of my bill would require that all Federal
departments and agencies submit annual reports on their purchases. The
amendment that I am offering today is based on that provision in my
bill.
The Buy American Act requires that the Federal Government support
domestic businesses and domestic workers by buying American-made goods.
I am pleased to note that the underlying bill includes language that
states that none of the funds appropriated to the Department of
Homeland Security may be used in contravention of the applicable
provisions of the Buy American Act.
It only makes sense that Federal departments and agencies be required
to report to Congress on their compliance with Federal law and with
congressional intent regarding this important matter.
The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being
spent, and to what extent these dollars are being used to support
foreign jobs. I look forward to reviewing the fiscal year 2004 versions
of these reports, and I am pleased that the managers have worked with
me to extend the requirement for the Department of Homeland Security
for fiscal year 2005. I will continue my efforts to ensure that this
simple reporting requirement is made permanent for all Federal
departments and agencies.
Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee
for agreeing to accept my amendment, and I yield the floor.

AMENDMENT NO. 3620

CONTRACTS

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

____________________