Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2003

Has the Senator completed her remarks?

I would like to make some remarks in connection with this amendment.

The Senator from New Hampshire would also like to make some remarks.

But not if the Senator has not completed her statement.

Mr. President, on the subject of antimissile devices for commercial aircraft, the Senate should be advised that the statement of managers on the supplemental that was passed earlier this year directed the Under Secretary for Science and Technology of the Department of Homeland Security to prepare a program plan for the development of an antimissile device for commercial aircraft. In response to that directive, the Department of Homeland Security has developed a program plan.

On May 22, 2003, this plan was submitted by the Under Secretary for Science and Technology of the Department of Homeland Security to the Congress.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that plan be printed in the Record.

What the Department has agreed to undertake is to bring together the best information from the private sector, our experience in the defense area for military defense against anti-aircraft missiles, and to come up with a rational approach to making such antimissile devices available to the commercial airline industry.

We have provided in the committee report $72 million for critical infrastructure protection to utilize information and scientific advances that have been made to deal with evolving threats to protect infrastructure security. Of this amount, $60 million is allocated for systems development of antimissile devices for commercial aircraft. This is provided and printed on page 62 of our committee report.

These funds will be available to carry out the work contemplated in the amendment of the distinguished Senator from California. In her amendment, she asks for another report to be submitted to the Congress by the Secretary of Homeland Security not later than March 1, 2004, to report on the progress made in developing these countermeasures for commercial aircraft. We have no objection to including this provision in the bill. We expect that we are going to have reports made periodically. We have hearings to review the activities of the Department, and this is certainly going to be a subject that we are going to follow closely.

It is because the Congress has made a strong point of emphasizing the importance of deploying these defensive measures as soon as possible that the Department has now undertaken a specific plan and approach to doing this in a rational way. The Senate may remember that some wanted to require the Department to make available immediately missile defense systems to be put on commercial airlines. We found that was not workable. The Congress did not insist on that point. In fact, amendments on that were defeated when they were offered earlier in this body.

But this is a program now--and the Senator from California has been a leader in bringing attention, keeping the pressure on--to see that we do this in a rational and an immediate way, with some sense of urgency. We have also noticed in the amendment, which we appreciate, that the Senator calls on a classified report to be made available to the Congress as well, assessing the vulnerability of certain airports, the largest airports in our country, from the threat of shoulder-fired missile systems and the measures being taken to address that threat. We likewise have no quarrel with that part of the amendment and are prepared to recommend the Senate accept it.

Mr. President, to complete the record on this issue, I am going to read into the Record the statement of managers from the conference report, dated April 12, 2003, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 2003. In that statement of managers, the conferees said:

The conferees direct the Under Secretary for Science and

Technology to prepare a program plan for the development of

an antimissile device for commercial aircraft. The plan

should identify the process for delivery and certification of

a prototype and the proposed cost and schedule for such an

activity. The report should be provided to the Committees on

Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of this Act.

As I mentioned in my earlier statement, we are pleased that the report was made available. We have now submitted that for printing in the Record to complete the statement that should be made in the Record to accompany this amendment.

I know of no one who objects to this amendment. I think we can adopt it on a voice vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I think we are ready to proceed to a voice vote on the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I, frankly, think this amendment is unnecessary and unnecessarily burdensome on the Secret Service, but I am not going to vote against it and the Senator insists on a vote on the amendment. I am going to vote for it and suggest all Senators vote for it. We have suggested, and the Senator has agreed, to modify her amendment to require the Secret Service to issue a classified report to Congress on security costs incurred by State and local government law enforcement personnel in complying with requests and requirements of the U.S. Secret Service to provide protective services and transportation for foreign and domestic officials.

The amendment, first off, is to have a report, a public report in the aggregate of all of these expenses. There were concerns--and I share those concerns--about the fact that potential terrorists or those who might be planning to do harm to the public officials who are protected by the Secret Service and the families of public officials, such as the President of the United States and his family, and visiting foreign government officials who come to our country on official business, are afforded protection, and those who are accompanying them.

The Secret Service is the primary Federal agency that has this responsibility. What this amendment first sought to do was to require a report of the aggregate costs associated with protection of officials, including State and local law enforcement officials who cooperate with the Secret Service to help ensure the success of the protection mission.

I am not sure how the Secret Service is going to compile all of this information, but they, I am sure, will undertake to do it if we adopt this amendment and say they ought to do it. All they can do is ask for State and local governments to submit to them the information that is requested in this amendment and then compile it, give it in a classified report to the Congress, and it would be made available in that form to all Senators.

I am hopeful the Senate can proceed to a vote on the amendment. I have not checked with the leadership to see whether or not there is any objection to proceeding to a vote right now. I have no objection to it. I do not know of any objection, but we will check with the leadership to be sure we can proceed. If not, we can set, by agreement, a time for a vote later in the day. Until we get that advice, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I withdraw my suggestion for the quorum call if the Senator wants to be heard.

It is not enthusiastic at all. I said I disagree with the amendment, and I think it is unnecessary. But I am willing to go ahead and adopt

it and urge the Secret Service to try to comply with it.

Mr. President, I make a point of order. The Senator should direct her comments to the Chair, not to other Senators. I think that is the procedure in the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Boxer amendment be set aside. We are advised that there is a ceremony that will be taking place momentarily in the Rotunda. The leadership of the Senate will be involved in that and maybe other Senators as well. The Senator from Washington has an amendment she would like to offer, and I think we could entertain her amendment at this time.

Mr. President, in connection with the Senator's amendment, the President's budget as submitted to the Congress proposed eliminating the emergency management performance grants program. This was a program that had been administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It is a program that provides funds to States to help prepare to deal with responses that have to be made at the local level to disasters that occur.

The reorganization of the Department of Homeland Security folded into this new Department the agency previously referred to as the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It is now part of Homeland Security.

This emergency performance grants program was recommended for cancellation by the administration's budget. They recommended combining it with a State and local grant program within the Office of Domestic Preparedness. Our committee looked at that and decided this program was an important program to the States and it should be continued in effect. So we have funded it as a program that is administered by the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate.

The amendment the Senator is offering does not complain about what the committee has done with respect to their recognition of this program as an important program for assistance. The only thing her amendment complains about is the level of funding. Since it was disestablished, in effect, in the budget, there was no funding for that activity. We put $165 million in it to continue the assistance program and improve the level of support that the Federal Government gives to States for this purpose.

Her amendment basically says: That is not enough money; we should have added $100 million more. Her suggestion is, instead of $165 million, this program ought to be funded at $265 million.

The problem is, there is no offset recommended in the Senator's amendment. Therefore, the amendment would violate the Budget Act. It would put us over the allocation that the committee has under the Budget Act. Therefore, at the appropriate time it will be my intention to make a point of order against the amendment for that purpose and for that reason.

Mr. President, we are prepared to suggest to the distinguished Senator from Nevada, if we could get consent, we would ask that votes on the Boxer amendment or in relation to the Murray amendment occur at 12 noon today. We are hoping we can get consent. I think it would be good for us to do that. We could vote on one amendment and then I think a motion to waive the point of order that I made would be the vote that we would have on the Murray amendment.

If the Senator would consider this: I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon today the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment, No. 1331, to be followed by an immediate vote in relation to the Murray amendment, No. 1327, provided further that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to each vote and that no second degrees be in order to the amendments prior to the vote.

I thank the Senator and I thank the Senator from West Virginia as well.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, as I said when the amendment was proffered by the Senator from California, we were pleased that she had agreed to make some changes in the amendment and that we would accept the amendment if those changes were included. She asked for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

I have further said that I thought the amendment was unnecessary and I don't know how the Secret Service is going to comply with the terms of the directive in the amendment. That is up to them. It seems to me they can make an effort to obtain the information sought by this amendment, which is the operating costs of the State and local law enforcement officials who are asked to cooperate with the Secret Service when they provide protection for visiting foreign government officials, or the President and his family, or for others whom they are obligated under the law to protect.

They were worried that if they made this available in an unclassified form, it might put in jeopardy some of the very people they were trying to protect because they would disclose the steps they were taking to assure their protection. I am sympathetic with that observation. That is why we urged the Senator to make this a classified report. But it would be available to Senators.

I have no objection to the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1327

Madam President, I make a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the Murray amendment provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Maine for her leadership as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee in helping shape the legislation that created this new Department and in monitoring its activities and keeping up with how they are going about managing their responsibilities.

Legislation has already been reported out of that committee, for example, that deals with such issues as formulas for dividing money among agencies and sharing money with State and local governments. These are very important challenges the committee faces because they are the committee of jurisdiction of homeland security. We are just simply providing the funds and trying to allocate it within the terms of a budget resolution, trying to maintain an awareness of the importance of holding down the deficit, being responsible, making sure the funds we invest in these activities are used wisely and efficiently and effectively. We want them to really count. We want to be sure we are upgrading the quality of our capability of responding to national emergencies, manmade and natural disasters as well.

It is a big challenge. There is no end to the list of ways we could spend more money in trying to do that. We are guided by the legal authorities laid out by the Committee on Governmental Affairs. We appreciate so much the guidance and leadership of the distinguished Senator from Maine in this effort. I commend her very much.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this provision is carried in the Treasury appropriations bill in the section on general provisions. Even though this amendment is not necessary to be on the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, I have no objection to it being carried on this bill as well. So we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina has raised an interesting question with the amendment that he has offered. He proposes to add $300 million for the Port Security Grant Program administered by the Transportation Security Administration and to take that money from another part of the bill-- $300 million from the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate. This is the Directorate that has the responsibility to conduct assessments of critical infrastructure to protect cyber-security in that structure, and to provide the ability to deal with the Threat Alert Advisory System.

The total provided in the bill for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection would be reduced from $823.7 million to $523.7 million. I am advised that this would deal a severe blow to the Department of Homeland Security efforts to provide the assets needed to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure.

Let me also observe that this was an amount that was included in the amendment we dealt with yesterday offered by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, although in the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia, he would have increased port security grants by $460 million.

The amendment of the Senator from South Carolina proposes to increase it by only $300 million.

But let me put in context what a substantial increase that is and what a difficult time the Transportation Security Administration would have in wisely and thoughtfully disbursing those grants to ports throughout the United States.

Let me illustrate that by suggesting that we already have $100 million in the bill for next year's spending. But we already appropriated $365 million in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Of the $365 million already provided by Congress to the administration for these purposes, only $260 million has been obligated by the administration.

So we have a proposal to add $300 million on top of an account where we have $105 million that is unobligated.

How much we can spend is a question we can ask, but we must also ask how much we can spend wisely in a coherent and thoughtful way.

If you are a port director out there and the word goes out that the Transportation Security Administration now has over $400 million to spend for these grants, you better get a grant application in. If you get it in quickly, you will probably get it approved whether you need it or not, or whether it is a good request or a thoughtful request.

I am not suggesting anyone would send in something like that, but the whole point is if we create an atmosphere where there is a rush to Washington for the money and there is more money up there than they can spend and the word goes out across the country to that effect, we are not contributing to national security or to homeland security; we are contributing to the disarray that this agency would be in in trying to deal with the applications in a thoughtful and careful way.

I am hopeful the Senate will look very carefully at this proposal. I suggest it should be rejected. I don't think we are going to measure the success of this bill with whether or not we spend as much as we possibly can but whether we have spent what we need to spend this next fiscal year. Of course, more money is going to be needed later. You can't do it all in 1 year. They haven't been able to spend the money we appropriated last year.

Think about that. Now we are going to add $300 million more to a $150 million account.

I just think this is piling money. It is going to create a big pile of money and maybe create a false impression of security. Appropriating the money is not going to improve our security. It is the things we do with the money and how it is spent according to a national plan.

I am hopeful we can monitor as we go along how the administration is spending the money. It would be good to know from the Transportation Security Administration why they haven't been able to get the money out that we previously appropriated. What is the reason for that? It would be good for us to be able to describe that now. Maybe somebody from the Transportation Security Administration can call us and tell us why they haven't spent it. That may help us put this amendment in context.

But I am hopeful we will help ensure before we appropriate an amount like this that the Transportation Security Administration is able to make the assessments and judge the quality of the grant applications that it receives to be sure the money is being disbursed where it needs to be disbursed as a matter of national security priority.

I don't think we have the capacity in the Congress to decide the priorities among the different ports. Obviously, some port directors have suggested they need more money than they are getting--that the money that is available is not enough.

I am sure the reason behind this amendment is the impression somebody created.

But I am not sure we have the information available to us right now that is convincing enough to take $300 million away from infrastructure assessment and analysis and shift it from one Directorate to another Directorate. We may be undermining a very essential part of the effort of planning and assessing priorities and establishing priorities if we move $300 million from one account to the one suggested.

I am not sure we can say or we have the evidence that we are now retargeting the money in a way that is consistent with our overall national plan. The administration says they don't want this amendment approved. They do not want the $300 million shifted in the way that the Senator from South Carolina suggests.

I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. I am not the Secretary of Homeland Security. I don't spend all day every day working to discharge the responsibilities that Secretary Ridge has, that those who work with him have, and the heads of the Directorates who have been given the power and the responsibility to manage the authorized activities that we put into law when we created this new Department. We have a lot of other things to do.

I am on five subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee. We have to deal with the Interior Department's funding. We have the Department of Agriculture.

My friend from South Carolina has served as chairman of the State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee. There are a lot of other areas that you have to become familiar with and concentrate your attention on to discharge your own responsibilities as a member of this committee. The Homeland Security Subcommittee is just one of 14 different subcommittees that we have in the Appropriations Committee.

The point I am making is that we have to give credit to the administration and those people who have been appointed by the President and selected by Secretary Ridge to help them carry out these responsibilities in developing a national plan, assigning priorities in submitting a budget request, and defending it in hearings before our committee.

I think we have done a reasonably good job of trying to assess how we divide the money that has been allocated to our subcommittee. Everybody wants more money. There is no doubt about that. I haven't had a single request saying don't give us the amount of money we asked for in the budget resolution. The impression you get from everybody is that they could use more money. But how much more?

Mr. President, $300 million is a lot more for this one agency, this one administration entity, the Transportation Security Administration, over and above what we put in the bill, and more than they have been able to spend in the last fiscal year. The fiscal year is almost up. We are well into the year 2003 and they have over $100 million they have not obligated.

Let's give them $150 million for this next year. We will monitor carefully the use of those funds. We will monitor the needs that are submitted in the form of grant applications from around the country. We will ask them to give us a report as to why they are choosing some applications for approval and funding over others, what are the criteria.

But to come in now and say, we know better than what they are doing, we know better than what they are suggesting, we know better than what the administration is asking for, to the tune of $300 million for this one agency, I think is too much, is going to hurt one agency to try to help another. And we just do not have the facts to support it.

So with great reluctance, I urge the Senate to vote against this amendment. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. He is one of my best friends. I have admired him a long time. I know he has approached this in a thoughtful way, and it hurts me to say I just think he is wrong and I believe we ought to defeat the amendment.

Madam President, there has been much made about the suggestion from the Coast Guard that we should have over $1 billion available for port security activity. Let me point out that in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, several other agencies of the Department of Homeland Security, other than the Transportation Security Administration, have been provided funds that are to be used for port security activities. The Coast Guard itself has been provided up to $888 million in 2003, and it is provided $1.201 billion in this bill.

The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has been provided $170 million for increased personnel at maritime points of entry, and $33 million is available in this bill for all ports of entry, including seaports, for the container security initiative. All have been funded in a total amount, if we add it up over 2003 and 2004, of $3.29 billion available for the security of our Nation's ports.

We are doing our best to allocate the funds to those agencies within the Department that can help us secure our maritime ports. I hope the Senate will agree with us, but it is now time for the Senate to work its will.

I move to table the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I was listening to the Senator from New York to be sure I understood what he was suggesting. He said if I didn't agree to one thing he would offer another thing and I am not sure what he sent to the desk and that is why I decided to go look. From what I understand, the Senator has offered an amendment that would--well, the reading of this seems to add $70 million, or earmark $70 million from the amount made available for research and development to the Secretary of Homeland Security, to award grants to national laboratories, private and nonprivate organizations, institutions of higher education, and other entities for the support of research and development of technologies that can be used to secure the ports of the United States.

What he then talked about was a technology he would require to be developed with funds in this amendment to detect nuclear explosive devices that were attempted to be brought into ports or brought into the United States.

The point is, we already have in the bill $55.2 million for a technology center which conducts the research and engages in the work that leads to the development of such protective devices.

I am confused by what the Senator said he is trying to do and what he sent to the desk. I have to be honest.

They are not all the same thing. That is my point.

I would be happy to yield.

Mr. President, if the Senator has completed his statement, I would be happy to continue. The committee is recommending in the appropriations bill $130.2 million for research and development. The way that is broken down even further as explained in our committee report on page 31, $55.2 million goes to a Technological Center for Research and Development. That is where the kind of work the Senator is talking about is done. An additional $45 million goes to the next generation of explosive device systems. The third category of funding is $30 million which goes to an air cargo pilot program.

The point is the Senator is coming in and adding $70 million to this account without an offset. That is going to violate the Budget Act. Because we have been unable to accept any amendments that are drafted like that, I would be constrained to make a point of order because the amendment would violate the Budget Act. That would be my intention if the Senator insisted on this amendment. If the motion to waive the Budget Act fails, the Senator can offer his alternative.

I do not know how else to proceed to consider the other amendment unless we deal with this one first. I just wanted to make that point.

Work is being done now. I am advised that work is being done now on the kind of research that would lead to, we hope, eventual deployment of the kind of system about which the Senator is talking. But we are unable to earmark that kind of money in this bill without eliminating funding for other research activities which are also underway.

We can't do everything at once. There is just not enough money. That is the rationale for having to make some choices and to allocate the funds as the committee has chosen to do in this bill.

If the amendment the Senator is offering does violate the Budget Act, I am going to have to make a point of order. And the Senator can move to waive it. The Senator can move to waive it, if he so chooses. He has that right.

I have yielded the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the technological center is in Atlantic City, NJ.

Mr. President, I would not. I am not going to tell an agency of this Homeland Security Department how to do research or where to put the priorities for research. Some of the information about detection of these devices I am sure is classified. I am not going to get into the business of having a public debate over exactly how much is being spent on that. We have asked the directorate if funds are being used to conduct this research, and they say that the research is being done. But, frankly, I don't have a dollar figure that I can tell you as to the exact amount which would be spent in this next calendar year on this subject. But it is less than $5.2 million. We know that.

Mr. President, in addition to the research account that the Senator seeks to amend with the amendment he submitted and which is at the desk, the Department of Homeland Security is engaged in a wide range of broad-based research activity under the auspices of the Science and Technology Directorate.

The Transportation Security Administration funding is affected by the amendment at the desk. There is a lot of other research that is being done relating to radiological and nuclear countermeasures. I am convinced that much of what is being done in terms of developing new ways of dealing with the problem the Senator describes is being done under the auspices of the Science and Technology Directorate.

Here are some examples of the work that has been funded over the last 3 years and is being funded again this year in this bill: sensor research and development. This is for radiological and nuclear countermeasures. In 2003, there was $10 million appropriated and enacted; $40 million reprogrammed for this account in fiscal year 2003. Mr. President, $71 million is contained in the Senate bill for sensor R&D. So over that 3-year period--$10 million, $40 million, $71 million--you have $121 million that has been appropriated for sensor

I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection is another agency that is involved in the research and development of detection and monitoring equipment and devices, particularly at ports. Port radiation detection and monitoring is funded in this bill that is before the Senate in the amount of $90 million. Mr. President, $119 million is provided in the bill for critical equipment at ports of entry, including seaports.

The point is, I am happy to join the Senator in an inquiry of the Department of Homeland Security to try to get an answer that is specific to his question. But I am not prepared to rewrite this bill on the suspicion the Senator has that not enough research is being done on this particular issue.

I think we are doing research on this point, and not at just one center or not at just one research facility. I mentioned the technological center in Atlantic City, NJ. They are doing work in this area that is funded in this particular account. That is why I described it, because it is funded in this $55.2 million account for research and development. And that is what that is. That is under the auspices of the Transportation Security Administration.

But these other agencies, these other directorates are also involved in research over a wide range of activities to more fully and more capably protect our homeland. That is the purpose of the Department. That is why we appropriated these large sums of money, and we will continue to do so.

So I am hopeful the Senate will trust the committee to divide the funds among the competent directorates and administrators of this new Department and to maintain oversight, as we customarily have done, and will do, to be sure they are spending the money wisely.

If the Senator would take my word for it, I would be glad to follow up and monitor the use of these funds to be sure we are doing research for the development of the types of protective devices the Senator described. I think we should be able to do that. I am confident we are doing research in that area. But all I can do is tell you that. I am not in charge of it. There are people who are competent and well qualified who are doing that work. So I am going to resist the Senator's amendment.

Mr. President, to save the Senator trouble, I make a point of order that the amendment of the Senator violates the Budget Act. The amendment of the Senator from New York provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation, and under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, I make a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to waive the Budget Act in connection with the Schumer amendment occur at a time to be decided in consultation between the two leaders.

Mr. President, the Senator has made some excellent points. He has pointed out, for example, the need for a review of the color-coded warning system.

I am pleased to advise the Senator, it is my understanding that the Department is undertaking just such a review at this time. He makes some excellent suggestions about categories of warning or targeted areas of warning. That should be considered as well.

I am willing to take this amendment to conference and urge, if we can convince our colleagues in the House, that there should be a provision in our conference report that encourages this kind of review and requires a report back to the Congress so we can know the status of it and what the expectations are of completing a review, giving us some of the details in a report so we can better understand the progress being made under such a review. That is why I did not ask for the yeas and nays because I am prepared to accept the amendment. I thank the Senator for offering this suggestion.

Mr. President, the Senator has that assurance. We will try to keep that amendment in conference. We will continue to confer with our friend from New Jersey.

I do not have one yet.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I appreciate very much the comments that have been made by the distinguished Senators from Maryland and Connecticut about the Firefighters Assistance Grants Program. It certainly is a program that is very popular and it is a program that has been recognized as well run. It is a program that is managed by the firefighters themselves in determining which grants should be made in their regions, which items of equipment ought to be included in the arsenal of protection for communities.

The only problem is, we don't have enough money in the allocation to this committee to make as much of an appropriation for many of these programs as we would like. We have to make choices. We had to allocate the total allocation among a large number of very worthwhile, very popular programs.

I hate to put the Senate in the position of having to make choices here on the floor that we labored with for weeks and months, through hearings with administration witnesses, through discussions among our staffs and Members of the Senate, to try to identify the priorities and then come to some final decision about the exact amounts to include in the bill for all of these programs and activities.

We have just so much money to appropriate. We kept the grant program for firefighter assistance at the same level as last fiscal year. In fact, we have included $200 million more than the President had requested in his budget which was submitted to the Congress. But this amendment would add funds that would cause the allocation to this subcommittee to be exceeded in violation of the Budget Act. As I have done with other amendments that have that same characteristic, I am constrained to make a point of order that the amendment violates the Budget Act.

I make a point of order under subsection 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for the vote on the motion to waive be decided by the two leaders after consultation with the two leaders.

Mr. President, with respect to the time for the votes on the two motions that are pending, motions to waive the Budget Act, I ask unanimous consent that the votes proceed in the order in which the motions were made and that the votes commence at 5 o'clock. It is my understanding that both leaders' offices have indicated that is permissible, and that is authorized and approved by the leadership.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I appreciate very much the advice of the Senator from South Dakota, the distinguished leader. This side is not going to require as much as 15 minutes per amendment. I can assure you of that. We probably will not need that much time to discuss our views on the amendments. We are glad the Senators are here and ready to offer them. We appreciate their cooperation in getting the bill moving along.

Mr. President, the Senator makes a point that certainly ought to be considered by the Senate, but it ought to be considered first by the Governmental Affairs Committee which has jurisdiction over the law that created the Department and the grant programs under which the Department administers the programs and distributes funds to the States.

There was a per State minimum provided in the law that established the Department of Homeland Security. Just recently, the Committee on Governmental Affairs undertook a review of that basic law, and they reported out a bill, S. 1245. It deals with the issue of formulas under which funds are allocated to the States. As a matter of fact, it specifically provides for the continuation of the State minimum funding grant to each State based on population. But it also takes into account high threat areas, large State and large city problems that exist, and provides for special grants to be made to those areas of the country. We already have, for example, the high threat urban area classification, and funds are allocated to those States and those areas that are under higher threats or have higher vulnerability in addition to the funds they get on a per capita basis.

My point in mentioning this and stating these facts is to say that this is not the time or the place for the Senate to deal with this issue. The time will be when this bill, S. 1245, is taken up by the Senate. It was just reported out of the committee on June 12, 2003. The distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, is chairman of that committee. She has indicated to me, with a note yesterday, that this bill had been reported out. So if any issue came up about formula grants and how funds were being distributed, it had already been considered by her committee and legislation had been reported on that subject.

What the Senator from New York is asking us to do tonight, even though this is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, is to go on record saying the formulas under which the funds are being appropriated by this bill are inappropriately distributed. They are being distributed under the auspices of current law, and so she is asking us to disagree with the content of current law and suggests that some different distribution be made by this bill.

We can't do that. We can't accommodate that. The time for changing the formulas and changing the way the distributions are made will be when the Senate turns to the consideration of this reported legislation.

It is for those reasons and not to argue that there are needs in States that have cities such as New York City and others. New York City already gets way beyond what any other city gets because it is a high threat urban area. We have charts. Everybody can have access to see how much each State gets. The Senator has already pointed out how some States appear to get more per capita than the big States, and they do. But what happens is, this is made up for in other programs that provide funds to those high-threat urban areas, and it is dealt with in this other legislation.

So it will be my intention to respond to any questions that I can answer. I wish the distinguished Senator from Maine were here because she knows more about the details than I do. But I will try to respond to any questions the Senator from New York has. Then it is my intention to move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I will be delighted to read the amendment: On page 49, line 2, strike ``$150 million'' and insert ``$450 million''; and on page 66, line 9, strike ``$823,700,000'' and insert ``$523,700,000.''

What happens on page 49? We add $300 million to the port security provision to which everyone has attested that they support. When we asked Secretary Ridge about more money, in that they had not proposed anything in this particular Homeland Security bill, he said, well, that is in the critical infrastructure section. So that is where we take it from as an offset on page 66, line 9, strike the $823,700,000 and reduce it by $300 million.

This ought to be an easy amendment for everyone to support in that, No. 1, we all voted for way more money when we passed the authorization for port security the year before last. We had 100 votes, all Republicans and all Democrats. And then we had the urgent supplemental--incidentally, that authorized $4.2 billion. We are not talking in those terms at all.

Actually, the Coast Guard surveyed 47-some major ports--there are 362 ports and 5,000 facilities--but there are 47 port areas with which we really are concerned. In those port areas are some 500 different facilities. So at that particular time, we said to the Commandant of the Coast Guard, give us a study and find out exactly what is needed. He came up with a $7 billion figure at that particular time.

So we are not at the $7 billion that has already been requested and found needed by the Commandant of the Coast Guard, not the $4.2 billion authorized at the time we passed port security legislation and we actually provided $1.2 billion. We had an amendment for $1.2 billion. It was defeated in the urgent supplemental, but when we looked at the Homeland Security appropriations bill, the administration did not request anything under port security. When asked about it, they said that is in the critical facilities section, and that is why we take from the $823 million this necessary $300 million.

Why do I say it is necessary? Right to the point, the interim rule requires the submission of security plans by December of this year. I will limit my comments to the 47 port areas and not the 5,000. This is required by all 5,000, but like first responders I think we will all be around for quite some time before we get the first responders outfitted as they should be. But here we know of the threat, and of the 47 port areas, they are without any approved plan within 1 year from July 1. And they must have the plans submitted in 6 months' time because by next July 1, if they have not been approved, under the bill the Coast Guard has the authority to close the port.

What has happened is the ports have all gotten together. The captain of the port under the Coast Guard is the responsible official. He has had to get the Immigration Service. He has had to get the Customs Service. He has had to get the Drug Enforcement Service. He has had to get local law enforcement. He has had to get the local public facilities, port facilities. He has had to get the private port facilities. This young officer out of the Coast Guard has had to correlate it all, working together to get a master plan for the security of that port area, and submit it by the end of this year-- within 6 months time.

When he submits it, of course, the Coast Guard itself has to approve or disapprove the plans coming in from all over, from 362, but particularly these 47 ports, and they have to begin to implement them.

In terms of a major port in Houston, TX, Long Beach, CA, Seattle, WA,

Philadelphia, PA, we are talking sense now, we are not talking politics, if we think we need a little bit more in our area for port facilities. I am in pretty good shape where I am in Charleston, SC. Since they closed the Navy yard there, I suspect al-Qaida would be looking for a more ripe target. They would be looking at Philadelphia, for instance.

What could happen? We know Osama bin Laden, according to Lloyd's of London, has control of some 20 vessels. He actually owns some 10 vessels and he has control of an additional 10. So he has control of some 20 regular vessels, what you might call rust buckets. It was one of these that went into a port in Kenya 3 years.

What happened was that particular ship docked at the port in Kenya. The terrorist crews jumped off, went and blew up the American Embassy in Nairobi, and went over into Tanzania and Dar Es Salaam and blew up that embassy, got back on the ship and boarded, and we have not been able to find them since.

That tells me--and I used to represent the ports in South Carolina-- what we have is not just the ship but we have ship crews available to al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden can easily get three to four. He does not have to send them to flight school in Arizona or send them down to Florida. He has them. They are experienced tanker crews. These three or four experienced tanker crews could work their way into a good Exxon or Texaco or Unocol or other oil company, a Chevron tanker, come with that Shell tanker into the port of Philadelphia, up the Delaware River, and just before they reach port, the three or four could throw the captain over, take control of the ship, and ram it right into the tank farm, and blow it up.

Booz Allen Hamilton did a study; and if there was a major terrorist act at the ports, we would have to close down the eastern seaboard. The stock market would have to close. We are talking serious business. And here it is that we, as a public body, have set the responsibility with the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration, and the Homeland Security Department. We have said come up with plans and have them ready and approved by this time next year, but at least submit them and have them gone over with, starting in December of this year. That money is needed--not the $4.2 billion authorized. I don't know of any more critical thing.

I worked on Homeland Security with our distinguished chairman, Senator Cochran. Actually, I had the U.S. entry and exit program. That was under my Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State. I am totally familiar with the FBI, the Immigration Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and many of these particular customs. But this particular port thing is real because it is mammoth and it is a way to close down the economy for a year to 2 years on the east coast. There is no question. Go into Houston, TX, and you have ruined the south. We would have to start rationing. Go into Long Beach, CA, and you have closed down the west coast area.

I worked with all the committee members as best I could. I said there is no other place to find funds, other than what Secretary Ridge himself indicated when we asked why they didn't submit an amount for port security itself. He said it already is in the critical infrastructure facilities program. So we take that money out of there, and we get it an offset. Of course, working on the committee, that really takes us to some need that is denied in any other area. We can increase that amount. We will be working with an increased amount, hopefully, when we get to conference on Homeland Security.

As the distinguished chairman and ranking member know, we must have more money in Homeland Security. We must have more money in our little Commerce, Justice, State bill that has been cut $910 million, way below last year. We could not go into conference with our House friends and formulate a bill and take care of the FBI and all of the other agencies. Just yesterday, the FBI was increased in this year, $410 million on the House side. I believe if you proposed that amendment in the next 10 minutes on the floor of the Senate, it would receive an almost unanimous vote. We do not want to cut from the FBI that is enforcing laws against crime.

FBI Director Mueller is doing an excellent job fashioning domestic intelligence efforts. We never wanted to have that in America, particularly after the McCarthy days and the House un-American Activities Committee. We said, learn and study and make absolutely certain that we are not spying on each other and having a domestic intelligence service. Now, with the war on terrorism, we need it. That has to be funded.

This is for just a modest request of the billions and billions included for fighting the war on terror. The former Commandant of the Coast Guard and now the head of the Transportation Security Administration, Admiral Loy, is doing an outstanding job.

We had a debate within the committee to try to get a sufficient amount just for the transponder tower. An airplane cannot approach the coastline of the United States of America without us identifying it. We cannot do that with respect to shipping. We are trying our best to use some overhead satellites, but we need to put up the towers.

Once the towers are there, then we can require the vessels themselves to install the transponders.

As of this moment, we have to get these plans and we have to get them moving. The communities are moving. They are ready, willing, and able. They are submitting some of these plans already at the Coast Guard office in the Transportation Security Administration. But we do not have the money to follow through. This is an unfunded mandate of our own that we want to at least set aside this particular amount, not to solve all of the ports problems by any manner or means, not to solve all the docking facilities' problems. That would be impossible. You could not spend that amount of money in 1 year's time. But at least we will need these funds in fiscal year 2004 to follow through to get port security in America. The fiscal year begins in a couple of months time, on October 1. It is critical.

I yield the floor and I am glad to respond to any questions or comments anyone has.

Madam President, I appreciate the complimentary remarks but you can't any better describe the Senator's resistance and objection to the amendment other than as fanciful. He goes off into all of the committees. It is very interesting to hear him in opposition to this amendment say that we have five subcommittees. Each of us have five subcommittees on the Appropriations Committee. There is nothing new about that. Yes, that is what it is, the appropriations for the entire Government.

Here is some $29 to $30 billion we are expending for homeland security. I am talking about one particular section where they have facilities-based critical infrastructure. When asked, Secretary Ridge said: Well, that's the way it is. We are going to take care of it. We are going to take care of it. But when we received the budget, it was not taken care of.

I am not guessing with figures. The $300 million is just a minuscule part of the $1.7 billion request sitting on Admiral Loy's desk. I wish he would call up and get his staff to work and find out the facts.

We started off with $1.2 billion, and the ports came in reuqesting $1.7 billion. Well, it takes the Coast Guard and it takes the Transportation Security Administration some time to look over, in detail, these particular submissions of $1.7 billion. This amendment is just to get it started with $300 million.

To say that we would create an atmosphere of waste, that we would contribute to disarray, that we may be undermining the process--come on. What nonsense is that? Here we worked on this thing in a bipartisan fashion. We had 100 Senators--all Republicans and all Democrats-- approve $1.2 billion. The Coast Guard itself comes in and says, in order to meet the request, the needs for port security, it is going to be at least $7 billion.

They have on their desk, as I speak, $1.7 billion in requests. And he says, we don't have the information and that this might contribute to disarray. Come on. Disarray? It contributes to security. He said it would be undermining the process and contribute to insecurity. I never have heard such an argument in my life, when we have the actual facts and we minimized the request that we know is absolutely needed.

They can vote it down. We are not the Mother Superior Security around here. But I do have a conscience about this issue because I worked with all sides of the aisle. I worked intimately with Admiral Loy. I work now with Admiral Collins of the Coast Guard. I have been to the ports. We have had, under the leadership of Senator Breaux of Louisiana, field hearings to all of these particular ports and everything else.

We don't really begin to get true security but this is just the minimal requirement to get the process out and working. He says they are wisely, thoughtfully disbursing. That is exactly what we are doing, trying to get the disbursement of the funds there. They are hanging back because they can't get the studies made, and everything else, and can't go out and examine the ports, and what have you. They don't have all of the personnel. They don't even have the towers up for the transponders.

You could talk for the rest of the afternoon about the needs of the Coast Guard. They are the best agency we have in the Government for the money we spend. I can tell you that right now. The Coast Guard is outstanding. They have said: Our appraisal now is for at least $7 billion. And that was last year at this time. They have requests on their desks for $1.7 billion and all we are asking for is $300 million.

We hear how we all have five subcommittees and every subcommittee wants more money, and this is just asking for more money because we have a subcommittee. Come on. That is not responsive at all.

I hope the Members will act in the security of the ports of the United States and approve this particular amendment.

Madam President, the statement has been made by the chairman that the administration opposes this. I wonder. I will go right to the text of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia on Iraq. A few comments are necessary when you say the administration was saying various things to get us into the war in Iraq. Now we find out not just one swallow makes a spring, but one 13-word sentence got us into the war. We heard that in 45 minutes Iraq could launch a chemical attack. We heard about the aluminum tubes.

We had the distinguished Secretary of State at the U.N. with photos pointing out that there they are, can't you see? You knew he was a judicious and careful witness up there. You had--well, of all things, not just the yellowcake from Niger in Africa, you had the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney, say just days before the attack in Iraq that they had indeed reconstituted nuclear. And I worked with the Presiding Officer in Transportation, which I will get to in a minute, when she was Secretary of Transportation.

But getting right to this particular point, I didn't have any fear about any imminent attack on the United States or maybe an imminent attack in the Mideast, on our friend Israel. Israel doesn't have time to play games. If you have ever been there--the numerous times I have been there, with an air alert, within minutes the planes alerted in Israel are found over Jordan, or over the Mediterranean, or over Syria. They are gone. They have left the country. The country is in a sense, a sort of aircraft carrier. So they cannot play around with conferences.

There isn't any question on the credibility of the so-called statements that the administration said, the administration requested, the administration demanded, the administration vetoed. I think the poor President has a hard time getting along with his staff on the information he gets. First he said the Director of the CIA was responsible; he had him apologize. Now he says a White House national security staffer is responsible; he had him apologize. We will pick up the morning paper and find it was somebody else. But he put the picture on his own White House Internet site of him going over every line, word for word, in the State of the Union, with his own hands. I wish I had that in my pocket. I would submit it for the Record so everyone could see it.

So don't give me this about the administration. The best of the administration wants this. The head of the Transportation Security Administration cleaned that agency up, frankly, after we instituted it. We had a rather inept administrator there at first, and I speak in praise of Admiral Loy, because he came over from retirement as commandant of the Coast Guard. I have been with him on hearings and on field trips. As the distinguished Senator from West Virginia pointed out, there is over a billion-some in requests by him. This would only get us a little of what he needs.

Who speaks for the administration on homeland security? Not those amateurs in the White House who, in tomorrow's paper, will apologize for whatever they said, or whatever they forgot, or whatever they didn't know. We know. We have studied this thing. We tried and we got, in a bipartisan fashion, 100 senatorial votes, Republican and Democrat, $4.2 billion. Since that time, Admiral Loy said the need is going to exceed $7 billion. Since that time, on his desk are requests for $1.7 billion. Obviously, he is not going to respond to every one of the requests. He requested $1.2 billion. These are facts.

So when the distinguished chairman says you have to wisely, thoughtfully disburse, that is exactly what we are doing--wisely, thoughtfully, and in a minimal fashion, as we are not getting what factually has been requested. So I dissent from the expression that we don't have the information. I resist the idea that this particular amendment may undermine the process and contribute to the insecurity, when we backed up with needs and everything else around here. I have been working since 9/11 on trying to provide for the

particular needs of the ports--and these are the major needs of the major ports.

When you talk about a member of a subcommittee and every member wants more money for their subcommittee, this is not that at all. This is something we worked on in the Transportation Committee.

As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, when she was the Secretary of Transportation, we worked in a bipartisan fashion on the Reagan National Airport. We did a lot of good things.

I have worked in a bipartisan fashion. I have not worked around here on port security because we just think, since I am a member of a subcommittee, I want to put in an amendment and get a little bit more money. We are behind the curve on port security in this country, and I am worried about it, in all candor.

This is a minimal amendment. I know the staff, and everyone else, including the Department, want more. They have said so and have requested more. I have requested $300 million to be added to the amounts.

I hope folks will in a bipartisan fashion support this amendment so we can get the Transportation Security Administration and Admiral Loy and the Coast Guard some financial support to get these funds administered and disbursed and get security in the ports of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor on behalf of an amendment with regard to the homeland security funding. But I would like first to recognize that a tragic shooting has occurred at city hall in New York City this afternoon. Councilman James Davis from Brooklyn, a man devoted to public service and an energetic and outspoken advocate for New York and the community he represented, was murdered.

Prior to Councilman Davis's service, he served in other capacities: as a New York City detective, as an instructor at the police academy. In 1991, he started a nonprofit organization called ``Love Yourself- Stop the Violence'' in an effort to address growing urban violence. It is a tragic, terrible irony that a man who first devoted himself to police work and law enforcement and then to trying his best to stem urban violence by giving people something to say yes to would himself fall victim to such violence.

I know the thoughts and prayers of New Yorkers go out to Councilman Davis's family and friends and colleagues at this difficult time. Certainly today's tragic event reminds us of the fragility as well as the preciousness of life. Certainly it gives us pause as we confront the need for us to do everything within our power on behalf of ensuring the safety and security of all of our citizens.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk expressing the sense of the Senate that homeland security block grant funds should be allocated to the States using a threat-based formula rather than simply a per-capita formula.

Will my friend from Nevada yield?

I would certainly wait until after this vote or at any other time that the managers of the bill could schedule discussion of this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment which is at the desk numbered 1348.

Yes.

This is an amendment that expresses the sense of the Senate that the homeland security block grant fund allocated to the States be done using primarily a threat-based formula rather than solely a per-capita formula.

The Homeland Security appropriations bill before us seeks to provide critical homeland security resources to our first responders--our States and our local communities--to help them improve our homeland defense.

I offer this amendment to support the effort to ensure that those funds are disbursed effectively. After setting forth a number of findings, this amendment states that it is the sense of the Senate that homeland security grants to State and local governments that contain the small State minimums in the PATRIOT Act and that are disbursed by the Office for Domestic Preparedness should be allocated to the States through a threat-based formula rather than a per capita formula after-- and I stress this--after the small State minimum provision is applied.

I am offering this amendment because the Senate committee report accompanying the bill requires Secretary Ridge to distribute the State and local grants, other than the high-threat formula grants, on a per capita basis.

This is obviously a bit confusing and arcane because it has to do with formulas and percentages, but it is a very important issue with which we have to come to grips.

The last wartime supplemental that we considered, thanks to the efforts of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, included language in the final supplemental conference report that directed Secretary Ridge to develop a threat-based formula for the distribution of State and local homeland security funds for fiscal year 2004.

This amendment is wholly consistent with that language which the entire Congress approved. I have said for months that we need to have a better formula for the distribution of State and local homeland security grants based not solely on the population of a State but on a variety of threat and vulnerability factors. I am sure these factors are ones on which we can all agree. But we are having some difficulty putting them into a formula that can then be used to direct the expenditure of the homeland security funds.

I have written Secretary Ridge. I have met with him. We have talked about this issue. He agrees that a better formula is needed. He has said it many times, including in testimony in April before the Senate Commerce Committee. At that time, Secretary Ridge told the committee he wants to overhaul the entire grant process to include a threat assessment. He has asked for guidance from Congress in designing a formula for distributing homeland security grant money to reflect the threats and vulnerabilities of different regions within the United States.

Here is what he specifically has to say:

The Office of Domestic Preparedness . . . had a formula

that we don't believe is the appropriate distribution for

counter terrorism [funding].

The formula as it exists now does not take into

consideration critical infrastructure, whether it's private,

whether they're federal, whether they're national icons.

The Formula doesn't really take in threat or

vulnerabilities.

And finally:

I suspect that reconstituting the Office for Domestic

Preparedness formula or coming up with something new is

something that we hope to achieve some bipartisan support

[on] and get it done and then attached to the 2004

appropriations.

On this issue, I absolutely agree with Secretary Ridge. The last thing we should do is tie the Secretary's hands by saying he cannot use any formula other than a per capita formula.

That is not just my view but, more importantly, it is the view of national experts, such as the Homeland Security Independent Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations, chaired by former Senator Warren Rudman. The task force makes it unequivocally clear that for the sake of our homeland defense we must employ a better formula.

The report of the task force states that they:

. . . found existing systems for determining the distribution

of appropriated funds [to States] to be badly in need of

reform.

The state and population-driven approach has led to highly

uneven funding outcomes. . . .

While this approach may have political appeal, it

unnecessarily diverts funding from areas of highest priority.

In addition, decisions by state officials regarding the

allocation of funds in their states have not sufficiently

taken into account the multitude of necessary factors.

Now, you see, we have a two-tiered problem. We have a problem here in Washington distributing the funds based on assessments of threats and vulnerabilities, and we have a problem in State capitals distributing the funds that the States get on the same basis.

Based upon their assessment, the task force, under former Senator Rudman, said:

Congress should establish a system for allocating scarce

resources based less on dividing the spoils and more on

addressing identified threats and vulnerabilities.

To do this, the federal government should consider such

factors as population, population density, vulnerability

assessment, and presence of critical infrastructure within

each state.

My amendment, expressing the sense of the Senate, sets forth those same factors that I believe Secretary Ridge

can choose to consider in developing a threat-based formula.

Let me make clear, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment; it is not authorizing language. Let me further underscore that the small State minimums in the underlying bill are not affected.

But what then do we do with the threat assessment formula? How do we figure out what factors should be considered?

Here are some I would recommend--obviously, starting with population. That has to be the No. 1 consideration. But I would go a step further because it is not just what the census says about the population as to who lives permanently in a particular city or county or region. There are parts of our country that have a very high tourism industry, that might have a military base, that have other factors that should be taken into account when we look at population.

As Senator Reid said yesterday, in talking about Las Vegas, the population in Nevada peaks on the weekend when thousands of people from all over the country and the world come to Las Vegas.

So in addition to population, we should consider population density, again, taking into account not just who lives there every day but the ebbs and flows in the density of the population--whether it is Orlando, FL, or Las Vegas, NV, or Manhattan. We should look at the proximity to nuclear and chemical facilities, ports, and international borders.

Yesterday, I referred to a GAO report when I was standing here in support of the very commonsense approach that the Byrd amendment represented. I referred to a GAO report that shows there are hundreds of chemical facilities in our country that contain toxic chemicals that could harm thousands, if not millions, of people within the near proximity. That is an issue we need to take seriously.

Similarly, nuclear powerplants--particularly the one in the county where I live, which is in a heavily populated area, in an area with very narrow, winding roads--they, too, should be taken into account.

We should look at the location of national icons, whether it is the Gateway Arch in St. Louis or the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco or any other national icon.

We should also begin to assess the presence and vulnerability of other critical infrastructure. I consider agriculture a critical industry to our country. Food supplies, water, public health, emergency services, the kinds of things that, if they were targeted, would disrupt commerce, would dramatically impede the kind of response needed because of the potential for destruction.

Finally, we should be taking into account intelligence and threat information, and any other information or any other factor that the Secretary deems appropriate.

Now, reasonable people can, of course, disagree as to which factors should be included and what weight should be provided to each factor. But there is an absolutely clear consensus among security experts that a better formula must be devised and used. And I have heard not just from homeland security experts on this point but from our front line defenders, our first responders, or, as some of our police officers like to refer to themselves, our first preventers.

Hopefully we can prevent tragedies, not just respond to them. It is not only our police and our firefighters but our public health officials and our EMTs, our mayors, our county executives who are there on the front lines. I said the other day if we were to determine our defense posture, our projection of force around the world on some kind of per capita basis, we would be placing soldiers in Canada and Sweden because, after all, they are there. Obviously, that is nonsensical. We don't do that. We look at the threats. We try to design our weaponry and our other responses to take account of all the threats that American military forces might encounter. And we should be doing the same for homeland security.

This is a two-front war. It is not only what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places, it is what we are doing to defend ourselves here at home that we have to be very concerned about. At the national level, if we don't take these various factors into account and establish a formula, we also fail to give guidance to our States. We also fail to recognize in a thorough, comprehensive way all of the potential vulnerabilities and targets we have.

For example, if one were discussing the homeland security needs of Louisiana, you might look at population and density, but you would also look at the fact that there is a major port. There are offshore petroleum platforms. We have part of the strategic petroleum reserve. We have river railroad crossings and facilities that are pumping natural gas to the rest of the country. That would be part of the kind of formula I am proposing that would certainly be justifiable and give the Secretary the discretion he needs.

There are many other places in the country that at first glance you don't think of as being perhaps vulnerable or strategically located, but take Lancaster County, PA. It has two nuclear powerplants on its borders. There are only five counties in the entire country in that same position. So I would argue that kind of consideration about critical infrastructure, proximity to nuclear and chemical facilities, should be considered.

I know many of my colleagues who represent less populated States worry about a threat-based formula versus a per capita formula. I have to say I understand that. I have lived in big States and I have lived in small States. I have been in every State. I believe every State has vulnerabilities and is potentially subject to threats that need to be considered. I think it is important we look at this effort as an ongoing one, but we have to untie the Secretary's hands. Right now he has no discretion. He has no ability to deal with the grants to State and local communities other than on a per capita basis.

What that leads to is articles like we have seen recently in national newspapers where money goes out in a huge amount on a per capita basis to less populated States, while States and cities such as New York and LA are trying desperately to figure out how they are going to protect major airports, all the other ports and facilities that they have, how they are going to do it with the amount of money they have, given the budgetary constraints that every State and city is confronting.

I tried in this resolution to recognize the political reality that exists. It retains the small State minimum. I can count and I know that we are not yet at a point where we can eliminate the small State minimum, so it retains that. That is about 40 percent of the money right off the top to be distributed on a per capita basis. But that leaves 60 percent to begin to implement a formula that does what the experts say we must do.

In closing, I believe whether we go through direct funding, which I still believe is the best way to disburse money--I am hearing from a lot of my mayors; they still haven't gotten any of the money that has gone to the State capital. Again, I understand that. I know a little bit about the pressures on Governors. But the fact is, the money is not getting down to a lot of the cities and counties that really bear the brunt of homeland defense. So I still believe we should do it directly.

But if it is passed to the States, then we need a formula, and we need a formula that gives guidance at the State level so we can get the money where it is most needed.

I hope we can begin to move down this road and start giving the kind of discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security who, after all, is really on the hot seat. He is the person who gets the threat information and the intelligence. He knows exactly what is happening because he has to be briefed on it all the time. To provide him this discretion would give him the opportunity to begin to implement a formula which I am sure is going to be revised. The factors will change. The weight will change. But we must start now; otherwise, we lose another year. I don't think we can afford to do that.

I hope that my colleagues will support this resolution, give the authority to the Secretary, preserve the small State minimum, but begin to give us some factors to gauge the threats and vulnerabilities that we know the experts know, but mostly our police and firefighters know they are facing every single day.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Washington for offering this amendment.

First, I compliment the able Senator for the great work she does on the Appropriations Committee. She has been a stalwart in the Appropriations Committee from the beginning of her career. In so doing, she follows in the steps of two great Senators from Washington with whom I served many years ago: Scoop Jackson and Warren Magnuson. Magnuson served on the Appropriations Committee just as Patty Murray serves on that committee. Those were very forceful Senators, very active Senators.

I knew Magnuson well, he being on the Appropriations Committee, as I say. But I knew Scoop Jackson even better. He was my supporter from the beginning of my career as a Senator who was involved in the leadership, first as Secretary of the Democratic Conference and then as Democratic whip and then as the leader. Scoop Jackson was always there. I should say in passing that the best whip the Senate ever had was the Senator who exceeds Robert Byrd, and that Senator

is Harry Reid. He and I were alike in this respect: He is always on the floor. So was I, always on the floor.

But Patty Murray is a supporter on the Appropriations Committee. She works hard. She is a Senator who certainly attends to her responsibilities with respect to her State, and she is also a Senator who has a national viewpoint. I think she exceeds all of us on my side of the aisle with respect to our work on the transportation matters, and I compliment her for that. She is following in that train of activity when she supports this amendment which she has brought to the attention of the Senate. I thank her for offering the amendment.

The administration proposed to consolidate the Emergency Management Grant Program into a single first responder program. She has spoken to this already. So has the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee who manages this bill today from that side of the aisle. He, likewise, mentioned this in opposing the amendment. So the proposal of the administration is a result of a fundamental misunderstanding of the Emergency Management Grant Program.

I am not saying that the distinguished Senator from Mississippi misunderstands it. He understands it well and he provided for it in the committee. I compliment him for that. But the Emergency Management Grant Program is the one Federal program that gives States resources to plan for what is called ``all hazards'' emergency management planning. That is exceedingly important. We must plan for responding to a terrorist attack but that does not mean we should lose the capability to plan for floods, tornadoes, and other natural disasters.

I am very keenly aware of this, being from the Mountain State of West Virginia, where those clouds hover over the high mountains and where the steep hills enable storms to flow rapidly down those sharp mountainsides into the valleys, often narrow valleys, and create extremely dangerous hazards for the people who have to live in those valleys and others who have to travel through those valleys and into those valleys to work.

I strongly support the amendment by the distinguished Senator from Washington. This is a proven program and I thank Chairman Cochran for agreeing to keep this as a separate program in the committee bill. This amendment would provide $100 million in addition to the funding in the committee bill.

I, again, compliment the distinguished Senator from Washington for her excellent work on the committee on behalf of her State and on behalf of the Nation, and I compliment her on offering this amendment today. I strongly support it. As I say, it means a great deal to the people of my State, to their safety and their welfare. I hope all Senators will support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Hollings.

The Coast Guard estimate on the first year cost of implementing the port security standards was $1.1 billion. That was the Coast Guard estimate: $1.1 billion. Let me say again, that was the Coast Guard estimate.

Let's see how much we provided.

Previously appropriated: $365 million; the committee bill, $150 million; the Hollings amendment, $300 million--making a total of $815 million. So $815 million, even including the amount in the distinguished Senator's amendment, is still well short of the $1.1 billion that the Coast Guard estimated would be the first year cost.

I note that the Department received over $1 billion of applications. So the Department can spend this money. It can spend this money well. The only reason that the Department has not spent all of the money that was approved by Congress last year is that the administration refused to spend the money. They did not get their act together and agree to spend the money until Congress directed them to do so in the April supplemental.

We are talking about national defense here. We are talking about defense of the homeland. We are talking about homeland security. That is the most important part of national defense: defense of the homeland. Oh, we spend $1 billion a day for national defense, not including homeland security--$1 billion a day, a total of $368 billion for this next fiscal year. That is $1 for every minute--I am looking at my watch--that is $1 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. I have already been speaking for a minute. It takes me 5 minutes to say, ``Good morning, how do you do?'' But $1 per minute for every minute since Jesus Christ was born.

We spend $1 billion a week in Iraq. We invaded a sovereign state without being provoked to do so. That sovereign state did not attack us. But under the preemption doctrine of the Bush administration, we attacked, we invaded a sovereign state that had not provoked us, that had not attacked us and was not and never has been, never has constituted an imminent threat to the security of the United States.

I voted against that resolution on October 11 of last year. I am proud I did so. I don't back up one centimeter in the statements I made at that time when I said that contrary to what the Bush administration was saying, contrary to what the President of the United States was saying, Iraq did not constitute an imminent threat to the security of the United States. It didn't then. It doesn't now. And it hasn't at any point in between. I said it then. I say it again. Yet we are spending $1 billion a week in Iraq. We ought not to have been there. We ought not to have sent our people over there. But we can save that for another day.

I am a minuteman when it comes to discussing that subject. If I had been living in 1775, I would have been one of the members of Captain Parker's minutemen who assembled on the green of Lexington. No, we had no business sending half of the combat-ready brigades in our Army, half of the total number of brigades. We have 33 brigades; half of them, 16, are in Iraq. And then we talk about spending money here to protect our ports, and it is too much money to spend? No.

I compliment the Senator from South Carolina on his amendment. We are getting men killed over there daily, on the average of one a day in Iraq. How long, how long are we going to continue to spend $1 billion a week in Iraq? How long are we going to see the body bags of American men and women coming back from Iraq, a war that we should not have fought? There was no reason to fight that war.

Now, with respect to the amendment, the Coast Guard has estimated that it will cost the ports $5.4 billion during the next decade to implement Maritime Transportation Security Act standards, including $1.1 billion this year. Yet the President did not request one dime for port security. This amendment would increase port security grant funding from the $150 million contained in the bill by $300 million. This would provide a total of $450 million for this program.

As I noted yesterday on my amendment, the Commandant of the Coast Guard testified before the House authorizing committee, on June 3, 2003, about the implementation of the Maritime Transportation Security Act legislation. He said:

The regulatory impact on the Maritime industry will be

significant, and the time line for implementing the new

robust maritime security requirements is exceptionally short.

However, the administration, while aggressively supporting Federal security funding for the aviation industry, has failed in four straight spending requests to include a single penny for port security grants, even though 95 percent of all non-North American U.S. trade enters our 361 ports around the Nation. This year, the Transportation Security Administration received over $1 billion of applications from the ports for limited funding that was approved by Congress last year. There clearly is a demand from the ports for help to harden physical security to reduce the Nation's well-documented seaport vulnerability.

The Hollings amendment addresses what many experts view as the greatest vulnerability in the Nation's defenses here at home. During the Senate Appropriations Committee's Homeland Security hearings last year, one witness, Stephen Flynn, noted that the Nation's seaports are the only part of an international boundary in which the Federal Government invests no money in terms of security.

``Most ports,'' said Stephen Flynn, ``the best you can get is a chain-link fence with maybe, maybe some barbed wire.'' That was Stephen Flynn testifying before our Appropriations Committee in April a year ago.

Who is Stephen Flynn? Well, let's see. Stephen Flynn was testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations. Stephen Flynn is a senior fellow, a Ph.D. senior fellow, national security studies, Council on Foreign Relations. He said he had just retired from the Coast Guard after 20 years of service the previous March 15. And he had assumed the position as the Jeane Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security with the Council on Foreign Relations.

He concluded his testimony by saying this, calling attention to the need for security at our ports:

This is a problem of the very first order. This is not a low politics issue. This is a problem that should not just be keeping me awake at night. This should be one that the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, the U.S. Trade Representative, and certainly the President of the United States should be deeply concerned about because what we are talking about is the sustainability of global commerce and those on-ramps and off-ramps at our ports, and they do not have security right now.

So there you are. It should not only be keeping these eminent personages awake at night, it should be keeping us Senators awake at night. And it may do so at some point. I hope not.

Madam President, I laud the distinguished Senator from South Carolina on his amendment and on his statement in support of the amendment. He is not a Johnny-come-lately on this matter. He is the ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and on our Appropriations Committee he is a man of great seniority and experience. He has been chairman and is now ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State. So he lacks nothing when it comes to experience. He is from a State that has great seaports. He has been talking about this particular matter for many months. So I salute him and I again compliment and thank him. I support his amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the motion to waive.

With the realities of today's world, communities--both large and small--need to be prepared for the possibility of a terrorist attack. The frontline counterterrorism effort is composed of what we call first responders. These are the people who are first on the scene--the police officers, the firefighters, the emergency medical personnel, and so on.

As they have always been, the men and women who serve in these departments are constantly on the job. They are always ready to fulfill their duty when their neighbors call for help. But the new threats of terrorism have forced these departments to refocus their training and restructure their budgets to respond to these threats.

In many cases, the departments rely on small fundraisers to pay for equipment and training. However, expanded missions and continuing threats are pushing the price of security too high for many rural communities to afford. Grants through the Fire Act provide funds to help offset those costs for local firefighters. Unfortunately, the demand for funding has far outpaced the available dollars.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Fire Protection Association, only 13 percent of the fire departments have the equipment and training to handle an incident involving chemical or biological agents. Forty percent of fire department personnel involved in hazardous materials lack formal training in those duties. Only 10 percent of the fire departments in the United States have the personnel and the equipment to respond to a building collapse.

The amendment by the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, and by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, would infuse critical dollars into local fire departments to help meet that demand.

The administration proposed to fold this program into a single first responder grant account. I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Cochran, for deciding to retain this effective program as a separate account. Unfortunately, because the budget resolution resulted in inadequate funding for homeland security, the committee bill provides only $750 million--only $5 million more than the level for the current fiscal year. The program is authorized at a level of $900 million. The amendment would fund the program at the authorized level of $900 million.

Terrorist incidents are primarily local events. The immediate response to the attacks at the World Trade Center came from the police and firefighters in New York City. The immediate response to the attack on the Pentagon came from the first responders in the neighboring communities.

These events bear out the critical need for well-prepared and well- equipped local emergency response teams. The ramifications of an ill- prepared local community in today's world are too large.

First responders will likely act alone in the initial critical moments of any emergency, no matter how large or small the emergency. In those moments, lives will be saved or lives will be lost. But these first responders cannot be expected to fund the fight against terrorism with bake sales, ice cream suppers, and bingo nights. That is why the support of the Federal Government--both in terms of funding and training--is so important for local police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel.

I commend my colleagues for offering this amendment. It is a necessary amendment. The cause is great. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and infuse critical dollars into our Nation's fire departments.

First, I commend the Senator for this very thoughtful and very important amendment. I wondered whether the Senator was aware that though we have a research facility in Atlantic City in my State, it is primarily focused on aviation. While they do explosive research, I believe the Senator would agree that this is more intent on examining the result of nuclear explosives--the kind of detonation that would really wipe out a whole port or a major facility.

Is that what the Senator wants to establish--that it is port specific and maritime specific and that we ought to get on with it to protect our ports?

Will the Senator yield for another question?

If there was a manifest that said ``nuclear weapon on its way,'' could you imagine something like that? We have all these containers. These are hidden boxes. You don't know what kind of cargo is in them. To me, it is one of the more susceptible areas for a terrorist attack of major magnitude. Thus, I ask the Senator, do you know from what part of the budget the $70 million you are proposing be used, which is out of $29 billion and is a very small fraction when you consider the risks that might ensue?

I understand that is where the Senator is going with this amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, with this amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill, I want to see if we can improve in some measure the terrorist threat warning system that we have in place and make sure that it is working as it is intended.

I believe the current homeland security advisory system--the colorful tiered alert system--does little to reassure the public they are safer as a result of these warnings. Based on reports I get from first responders in my State and experts throughout the country, I believe this advisory system must be reevaluated and improved.

The amendment simply calls for a report from the Department of Homeland Security within 90 days of the passage of this bill evaluating how effective the terror advisory system is in meeting its goals. We are all familiar with this program. There are five levels, ranging from low risk to severe risk. You can see on the chart this color- coordinated presentation. The Department has color coded each risk level to make it easy to understand.

However, I don't believe this color war against terrorists is working. On four instances over the past year, Secretary Ridge has raised the threat level from yellow, elevated risk, to orange, high risk of terror attacks, based on increased terrorist chatter or other intelligence information. Aside from these instances in which the threat level was at orange, the system has been evaluated at the elevated yellow status since its inception in March 2002.

What I want to do now is discuss a series of concerns I have about the color-coded system and its repercussions.

First, the system evokes confusion and fear among Americans who want to respond to the elevated risk levels, but the question they raise is, Should they be changing their daily patterns without advanced knowledge about where or when they vacate their homes, offices, schools, factories, et cetera? Some Americans have stopped going to malls, some avoid public transportation, and many cancel trips. These arbitrary behavioral changes can have a serious impact on our already weak economy.

These are questions we have to ask: Does work stop? Do classrooms close? Does shopping halt, no matter how essential the goods? Should Americans take precautions?

The Department of Homeland Security doesn't tell us. I am not faulting the work they are doing, honestly, at the Department of Homeland Security. This is all still in its formative stages. We don't know quite where it is going to come to rest yet or where it is most effective.

DHS tells us to be vigilant. I don't know what that means. I am sure most of the American public doesn't know exactly what being vigilant means. The system presents high costs to local communities. When the threat level is elevated, local first responders are forced to respond by deploying already overworked police and firefighting people and by bolstering other first response systems without added Federal financial assistance.

When the DHS raises the alert, they provide almost no specific guidance to State and local governments. It requires State and local authorities to make many of their own decisions, or perhaps all of them, on how they should respond. In my State, like the rest of the country, when the alert is elevated to orange, or high, local officials tighten security on highways, railroads, bridges, bus terminals, Federal buildings, and densely populated areas. And this is an extremely expensive undertaking for State and local governments. Cost alone, while important, is not the only factor. Disruption of normal life is a victory for terrorists without any demonstrable benefit to our society.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently released new data compiled from a survey of nearly 150 cities nationwide. They estimate that cities throughout the country are spending, on average, nearly $70 million each and every week in additional homeland security costs due to the heightened threat alert level.

These costs come in addition to the existing homeland security spending since 9/11, which the mayors estimated to be around $2.6 billion in the first 15 months after the tragedy. However, this only asks the cities about direct costs. There are also indirect economic ramifications of code orange alerts that diminish tourism and other lucrative industries. The mayor of Atlanta, for example, has said the city's hotel occupancy is down 8 percent and 16,000 hotel jobs have been lost.

There are also innumerable indirect nonfinancial costs of the current terror alert system. For example, when a police officer who is normally assigned to

antigang work, or some other assignment, is reassigned to guard a public building, that is a real serious cost to a city. And also it damages the law and order structure that must be contended with at the same time.

My third concern is that the system is not tailored to give warnings on a regional basis. Increased terrorist chatter may suggest that a major New England city is subject to a possible threat. But small towns in the Southwest are also now asked to respond.

Other nations that face terrorist threats have a more sophisticated localized system. Experts continue to recommend that the United States establish a threat alert system similar to that in Israel, where intelligence or terrorist chatter is translated into specific warnings about geographical areas that might be more susceptible to a terrorist attack. For example, in Israel, threat warnings are easier to understand. For example, the Israeli Government would issue a terror alert for an area of the country such as Galilee. If we have reference to a targeted region in the U.S., we ought to provide specific information. Is it New Jersey? Is it Los Angeles? Is it Des Moines, IA? Where is it? Is it the port that we were discussing before? We have so many port assets in our country that need to be protected against terrorist attack. So where do you apply the pressure? Where do you spend the money?

Four, when the threat level is issued, there is no description of the nature of the threat that can help those expected to respond. We are not going to be naive about this. We are not saying we have information that such-and-such shopping mall is going to be attacked and, therefore, avoid that mall. We cannot be that specific. But we ought to be able to narrow it down from just a general alert across this great country of ours to something that gives people a direction for their actions when they hear the call.

Should the Governors call out their National Guard troops to protect every chemical plant in the country--and there are hundreds of those-- or transportation centers, or do they bolster rail security in every place? I do not think so. Again, this is not criticism of a system that is developing against a very serious threat to our society.

Finally--and I believe this is a key point--the system does not provide adequate instructions for the American people or local authorities. When I talk to the police in my area--and before I came to the Senate, I was a commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. They may get a call about something they ought to be on the lookout for, but the New York State capital is in Albany and the New Jersey State capital is in Trenton.

Do they call out their State troopers to cover all of those areas, all those police departments? In New Jersey, we have 567,000 municipalities. Some of them only have two or three policemen. What do they do? We need direction from those who have the knowledge and have the resources to research this.

The Homeland Security Department requires Federal agencies to respond to an elevated threat at the Department's own discretion, but does not issue specific guidance to Americans in State and local governments.

This lack of guidance can cause a lot of confusion and, in some cases, real panic. I have, through the process of these alerts, had calls--less now than I had in months past: Should I go to New York? My children have to travel to school on the turnpike. Should they be on the turnpike? Should we do this and should we do that? In many cases, people want to know whether they should stay home and guard their household and their families.

Lord knows we hope not, and we should take that kind of action. We cannot let the terrorists win by immobilizing our activities. We need to do better. The system has problems that at least ought to be reviewed, and I believe that improvements must be made.

I am not saying we should not spend the necessary money to deploy more police officers to malls, nuclear plants, chemical manufacturing or distribution facilities, train stations, or Federal buildings. I am a firm believer in spending whatever we have to spend to protect our security at home. But I am not convinced the homeland security advisory system is the most efficient way of assessing threat and organizing local response.

On June 6, shortly after the threat level returned to yellow from a Memorial Day elevation to orange, Secretary Ridge himself acknowledged the color-coded alert system needed readjustment. He said to the Washington Post:

We worry about the credibility of the system. We want to

continue to refine it because we understand it has caused a

kind of anxiety.

Anxiety is an understatement. The system causes financial hardships, fear, panic, confusion among Americans and people who want to be conscientious about protecting their families, sometimes exaggerating what they ought to be doing and creating a lot of tension within a family, within a household.

Experts warn that with the continuing volleying between orange and yellow alerts there will be a new threat level that we might call fatigue. Secretary Ridge has not offered a time line for revising the system. My amendment will make reviewing this system an important priority for the Department of Homeland Security.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. It will send a message to the Department that the alert system needs to be enhanced to increase its efficiency, its specificity, its overall usefulness to first responders, police, fire, and other emergency personnel.

I wish to point out this entails no further expense. A review is common in a situation such as this where such a big change is taking place. I hope everybody will take a serious look at this and think about their constituents back home who have called them, who have written them letters, who asked for advice. Let them ask the mayors in their communities or the Governors in their States what they think.

I want to make sure it is understood. I am not leveling broadside criticism at the Department of Homeland Security or Secretary Ridge. I think he is a very capable executive. We all want to do our best with this issue, spend our money most efficiently, but disrupt life as little as possible.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his support on this issue. I am happy to have it accepted. I wish to point out, in the debate we were having about port security, I have served with the Senator from Mississippi for now 18\1/2\ years, and I have never known him not to support our defense or our security needs. I have admired him for his balance in these issues. I continue to do so.

That debate was not intended to challenge the Senator from Mississippi who is managing this bill, but to make sure that the situation we are talking about with the ports which we feel are susceptible, especially in the northeast corner of our country where so much is dependent on port activities, that it is clearly understood. I appreciate that. I am happy to have this amendment accepted, and I ask the Senator from Mississippi to make sure it gets discussed at conference and presented.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.