Rail Security Act of 2004

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Mr. Leahy, Mr. Reid of Nevada and Mrs. Clinton, I send to the desk an amendment.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, the President of the United States has been out on the campaign trail asking the question, is America safer? That is a good question. Is America safer? That is a good question. President Bush concludes that America is safer. He pats himself on the back, wraps himself in the flag, and tells Americans that he is a war President and that we should trust him.

The President is asking himself the wrong question. He asserts that America is safer. Well, safer than what? Safer than we were on September 11, 2001?

In August of 2001, while in Crawford, TX, the President read an intelligence report providing clear warnings that al-Qaida was preparing to attack the United States. Yet, tragically, on September 11, 2001, Americans were not safe. Therefore, telling Americans that we are safer than we were on September 11 is not much of an accomplishment. Making America safe is not that simple.

The President should be asking himself, in the 3 years since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 have we been taking the prudent steps necessary to address the clear and present dangers that we face right now and that we know of right now? Last week President Bush said:

This election will also determine how America responds to

the continuing danger of terrorism--and you know where I

stand. Three days after September 11 I stood where Americans

died in the ruins of the twin towers. Workers in hard hats

were shouting to me, ``whatever it takes.''

The President said:

Since that day I wake up every morning thinking about how

to better protect our country. I will never relent in

defending America, whatever it takes.

Rhetoric is easy. Rhetoric is cheap. But the followup is hard. If the President meant what he said last week he would not be satisfied with a bill that cuts funds for first responders. He would not be satisfied with a bill that leaves first responders unable to communicate. He would not be satisfied with a bill that leaves airline passengers worrying about explosives on board, or that fails to adequately invest in securing our ports, our chemical facilities, and our trains. We have to match talk with action and I hope the people will remember that, insist on it, and hold us responsible if we don't do it. And that goes for the President as well.

In response to authorization bills signed by the President but not funded, in response to 9/11 Commission recommendations, and in order to address well known vulnerabilities not funded in the committee bill, I have offered an amendment today that totals $2 billion and includes $586 million to equip and train our first responders and to address the interoperability radio communications problem. Consistent with the 9/11 Commission recommendation, all of these first responder funds will be allocated based on threat.

Moreover, I am adding $350 million to help secure our rail and mass transit system. Also included is $324 million to expedite the modernization of Coast Guard ships, planes and helicopters, bringing funding for the Deepwater program to the level recently authorized by Congress and signed by the President. Also included is $150 million for improved air security for purchasing equipment for screening passengers and carry-on baggage for explosives, consistent with 9/11 Commission recommendations.

How many people realize that we do not have the equipment that checks airline passengers for explosives? People may think that we do have it. We do not. We have equipment that checks passengers' carry-on for guns, metal objects, but not explosives. Now, remember that. Keep that in mind. So, included in my amendment is $150 million for improved air security for purchasing equipment for screening passengers and carry-on baggage for explosives.

Also, there is $125 million for port security grants, $111 million for border security for additional radiation detectors, additional border patrol personnel and for improved detention and removal, $100 million for hiring additional fire personnel, $100 million for securing our drinking water systems, $100 million for securing chemical facilities. In the Kanawha Valley in south central West Virginia there are chemical facilities. There is a great complex of chemical facilities, as great as any other in the Western Hemisphere, I would say.

Also included in this amendment is $50 million for grants to secure nonprofit organizations such as hospitals, colleges, churches and synagogues, and $4 million for hazardous materials and grants.

This amendment meets critical needs. It addresses vulnerabilities that we all know exist. And let there be no doubt. If we know that these gaps exist, so do the terrorists know these gaps exist.

It has been more than 2\1/2\ years since Richard Reed, the so-called ``shoe bomber,'' tried to blow up a Miami-bound aircraft over the Atlantic Ocean with explosives that he carried onto the aircraft. Only last month, two Russian airplanes simultaneously were blown out of the sky most probably by Chechnyan terrorists who carried the explosives on board the aircraft. The 9/11 Commission report states clearly and succinctly that the threat posed to passenger aircraft by explosives being carried onto the plane is real. Yet the President has not responded, so the Senate must respond.

The additional $100 million in this amendment will significantly expand the effort to screen air travelers for explosives and chemical weapons. We know that newly developed passenger portals can detect whether passengers are carrying explosives. These systems have been tested, and these systems have been proven to work. We need the money to deploy these systems at our Nation's airports. Lives depend on it. Those of you who travel on aircraft, your lives depend on it.

Following the March 11 Madrid railroad bombing, the administration issued security bulletins to law enforcement officials and transit authorities warning of the danger of similar attacks here at home.

So that is what we did. We issued security bulletins.

Crowded trains are inviting targets for terrorists. Busy transit stations allow for easy access, anonymity, and quick escape. Yet the administration requested no new funding to secure mass transit facilities.

Your lives depend on it.

We cannot continue to deceive the American people. The American people believe they are being made safe. They undoubtedly believe the passengers are being examined, tested, and checked for carry-on explosives.

Under Secretary Asa Hutchinson said ``millions of Americans travel by rail every day and recent world events highlight the need to ensure they are kept safe from acts of terror.'' Yet this White House proposed no new funds, just an unfunded mandate. Paper directives and press releases will not--will not--stop terrorists bombs.

On May 6, 2004, the Senate Banking Committee on a bipartisan basis approved S. 2453 which authorizes $5.2 billion for transit security. On May 21, 2004, the Senate Commerce Committee, also on a bipartisan basis, approved S. 2273 which authorizes $1.2 billion for additional rail security activities.

On a broad bipartisan basis, these committees have recognized the overwhelming need for this Congress and this administration to step up to the plate and robustly address the security threat facing our rail and transit systems. The President has not responded. The Senate absolutely must respond. So my amendment includes $350 million for transit security grants.

Three years now after 9/11, despite hundreds of firemen losing their lives in the World Trade Center because they could not receive emergency radio messages to evacuate, the Federal Government has contributed little to the efforts to solve the interoperability communications problem. In fact, the President proposes to terminate the Justice Department's Interoperable and Communication Grants Program and proposes no funding for fire departments and other first responders through the Department of Homeland Security.

What in the name of Heaven is the President waiting on?

This amendment provides $100 million for interoperable communications equipment. The Senate Commerce-Justice-State bill is expected to include $100 million for the COPS Program to improve interoperable communications for police departments. Why not make sure that police, fire, and emergency medical personnel can communicate with one another? The $100 million contained in my amendment meets only a fraction of the need. But it is a critical start.

While States can use their first responder grants to solve the interoperability problem, many States have not chosen to use first responder dollars to address this problem because of the complexity of multijurisdiction and multiagency purchases, and because of competing demands on first responder funds. In 2003, according to the Alliance in Support of America's First Responders, only 3 percent of the funding was dedicated for interoperable communications equipment. A separate funding source is required to overcome these hurdles. My amendment accomplishes that goal.

The 9/11 Commission recommends allocating first responder funds based on threat rather than on population. My amendment adds $440 million to the $875 million currently provided in the Senate bill for urban areas security initiative grants. These grants are targeted to cities that are determined to be at greatest risk of a terrorist attack, that have the highest number of critical assets such as tunnels, bridges, and chemical plants, and have population density. We need to get funds to places that are most at risk.

On August 1, the Department had such specific threat information that it moved northern New Jersey, Washington, DC, and New York City from Code Yellow to Code Orange. We must back up such targeted warnings with funds, and the Urban Area Security Initiative Program allows the Secretary to send funds where they are needed most--not based on formula but based on facts.

The Council on Foreign Relations report, authored by former Senator Warren Rudman, found that America will fall approximately $98.4 billion short of meeting critical emergency responder needs in the next 5 years. Cities are spending an additional $70 million per week on personnel costs alone. Funding urban area security initiative grants is the only way to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security can get moneys to the cities that are most likely at risk.

My amendment also provides an additional $46 million for the Fire Grant Program to restore the program to current levels and avoid an ill-advised funding cut. In the current threat environment, why in the world would one slash fire grant funding?

This year, the Fire Administration received 20,366 applications totaling $2.6 billion from local fire departments. The bill provides $700 million for the program. As one the pillars of the first responder community, it is essential that our firefighters have the best equipment and the best training possible, but because of shortsighted administration budgets, too many fire departments are being left high and dry.

What about our borders? What about our national borders? The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, CBP, has a 5-year plan for deploying radiation portal monitors at our ports. The plan calls for deployment of approximately 2,000 of these monitors at locations around the country based on assessment of the nuclear smuggling threat, focusing on nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons material, radiation dispersal devices, and other illegal or illicit radioactive material. Why should we wait for a 5-year plan? The additional $50 million in this amendment will allow CBP to deploy radiation portal monitors to screen 100 percent of the inbound containerized cargo at 30 additional seaport terminals, thus completing the deployment of these monitors at America's top 22 seaports and several Southwest border land crossings. Let's start now.

My amendment also addresses the need for more personnel on our borders. The USA PATRIOT Act, passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, calls for a tripling of the number of border patrol agents as well as Customs Service and Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors on the northern border. While the border patrol has met the PATRIOT Act requirements to increase the number of agents on the northern border, the number of Customs and Border Protection--CBP--officers remains woefully inadequate. In May of this year, the CBP was 1,428 officers short of the goal. I repeat, in May of 2004, the CBP--Customs and Border Protection--was 1,428 officers short of the goal. Yet, incredibly, the agency has been stuck in a hiring freeze ordered by the administration in March. The $50 million provided in this amendment will add 439 new CBP officers, getting us almost a third of the way toward meeting the PATRIOT Act requirement.

My amendment also includes $324 million for the Coast Guard Deepwater Program. Prior to September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard began to modernize its fleet of assets. The program, named Deepwater, called for the modernization or replacement of some 100 cutters and 200 aircraft over a 20-year period.

Since the attacks on September 11, the Coast Guard's responsibilities have grown substantially. As a result, assets vital to homeland security are being used more today than ever in the Coast Guard history. The Government Accountability Office recently reported that ``resource usage--as measured by the number of hours the Coast Guard's cutters, boats and aircraft are used to perform its mission--was up almost 40 percent from pre-September 11 baseline.''

The Coast Guard Commandant, in testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, testified that the current condition of the aging fleet threatens Coast Guard mission performance. He testified that Coast Guard assets are in a ``declining readiness spiral.'' Yet the President does not respond. What happened to ``whatever it takes''? The President's budget for the Deepwater Program will take 22 years to complete. This is 2 years slower than the Capital Improvement Program envisioned when Deepwater was conceived prior to the tragic events of September 11.

My amendment provides $324 million above the amount provided in the committee bill, the full amount authorized by the Congress and the President just 1 month ago. This funding will address the Coast Guard's ``declining readiness spiral.'' The funding would go to accelerate the Coast Guard's highest priorities, which are to enhance safety and reliability on the HH-65 helicopter, accelerate the design of the fast- response cutter for near-shore missions, and complete design of the offshore response cutter for the high-endurance missions of the Coast Guard. The funding will accelerate the Deepwater Program, finishing it in 15 years instead of the administration's 22-year plan.

We must do more to protect our seaports. The top 50 U.S. ports account for 90 percent of all cargo container tonnage entering the United States. A 1-month closure of a major port would cost our national economy at least $60 billion, but because of the tremendous volume of containerized cargo, customs officials are inspecting only 5 percent

of the 9 million containers that come into our ports on vessels each year.

The Coast Guard has estimated that $1.125 billion will be needed in the first year, and $5.4 billion will be needed over the next 10 years for the ports to comply with the Federal regulations mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act which was signed into law by President Bush with great fanfare in November of 2002. However, until this year's budget submission, President Bush had requested no funds-- none--for port security. Last year, Congress provided $125 million for port security grants. Yet, despite telling the people that security is his top priority, President Bush proposes to cut port security funding by 62 percent. Promises are broken once again.

Upon adoption of the Levin-Collins amendment last March, the Senate version of the resolution assumed that $275 million would be appropriated for port security grants in fiscal year 2005. The bill before the Senate today provides $150 million. The additional $125 million in this amendment keeps the port security grant promise that was made in the Senate budget resolution.

The amendment also includes $100 million to secure our Nation's drinking water systems. The Nation's water infrastructure includes 75,000 dams and reservoirs, 168,000 public drinking water facilities, 16,000 publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities, and thousands of miles of pipes, aqueducts, water distribution and sewer lines. We have a sense of the vulnerability. Why not protect this piece of critical infrastructure?

The amendment also includes $100 million for chemical security grants. In March 2003, Homeland Security Secretary Ridge said, ``There is no question that when we take a look at a chemical facility, the possibility that terrorists could use that economic asset and turn it into a weapon is something that we need to be concerned about and are concerned about.''

Apparently that concern has vanished. Since September 11, the Department of Homeland Security has done little to enhance security at the 66,000 chemical plants across this country. This is frightening, when security experts such as Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings institution called the threat to chemical plants a ``ticking time- bomb.''

When Secretary Ridge testified last year he said that the chemical industry was better suited to assess vulnerability and take appropriate security measures than the Federal Government. But earlier this year the Government Accountability Office submitted testimony to Congress saying that ``Despite the industry's voluntary efforts, the extent of security preparedness at United States chemical facilities is unknown.''

When Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Under Secretary Frank Libutti testified in March before the subcommittee, he said the key in working with the chemical industry was ``partnership'' between the Federal Government and the private sector. Yet almost in the next sentence, he said industry needs to ``belly-up'' when it comes to paying for improved security. What kind of partnership is that? We should be taking action now instead of rolling the dice hoping that an attack against a chemical plant does not happen.

My amendment also includes $50 million for hiring additional Federal air marshals. The administration has failed to meet its goal for hiring air marshals. In fact, the administration has allowed the number of air marshals to drop by 9 percent this year. With numerous terrorist threats against our airlines and a 6-percent increase in the number of flights, why allow the number of critical flights covered by Federal air marshals to drop?

Since 9/11, the administration has increased the threat level risk to Code Orange six times. On September 1, Secretary Ridge spoke before the American Legion's national convention and said:

Terrorists in the 21st century represent a daunting enemy.

They represent no country, no cause, no flag, no people--yet

they have access to a steady supply of technologies, and

funds, and willing recruits. They are undeniably methodical

and maniacal in both their weaponry and will. They seek to

use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons . . . and before

them lays a map of the world.

Mr. President, according to the New York Times, on September 7, Vice President Cheney said:

It's absolutely essential eight weeks from today, on

November 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the

wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and

we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the

standpoint of the United States.

What an irresponsible, what an utterly irresponsible statement for a Vice President of the United States, or for any public officer, to make. Think of that.

Let's read that again. According to the New York Times, on September 7, Vice President Cheney said:

It's absolutely essential eight weeks from today, on

November 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the

wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and

we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the

standpoint of the United States.

How utterly irresponsible. What an irresponsible statement for a public officer to make. If the Vice President were all that interested in homeland security, rather than political posturing, he would be urging his Republican colleagues to support this amendment.

The President has said he would do ``whatever it takes'' to defend America. If the President was being straight with the American people when he said that, he would be supporting--he would be supporting--this amendment. He would support it. It provides $2 billion for a targeted set of programs. It implements several 9/11 Commission recommendations. The amendment funds programs that have been authorized by the Congress but not funded by the President.

We cannot make America safer with empty promises. We cannot make America safer with duct tape. My amendment funds the bricks and mortar of a strong homeland defense. It could save countless lives and it offers real security, not just empty rhetoric. What could be wrong with spending a little more to protect the American people? What could be wrong with keeping a promise? What could be wrong with actually doing ``whatever it takes''?

I urge the adoption of the amendment.

I recall it.

Yes, I am aware of it.

Yes.

There is no question about it. Time after time, as the Senator says, they have turned down amendments of this Senate to enhance the security of our people, our facilities, our properties. Time after time after time. Our pleas have fallen upon deaf ears. And in the nearly 3 years since the tragic events of 9/11, I myself have pressed the Senate to provide additional resources for homeland security. The administration, the President, including the great Vice President we have, consistently opposed these efforts. The President went so far as to threaten to veto bills if they included what the administration characterized as ``wasteful spending.''

There are many examples--let me give a few--of funding contained in these amendments that certainly would have helped to make America safer. In November of 2001, Senate Democrats supported my amendment to include $15 billion for homeland security in an economic stimulus package, including $4 billion for bioterrorism and food safety; $4.6 billion for State and local law enforcement and fire training and equipment and Federal computer improvements; $3.3 billion for transportation security, including airport and port security; $1.1 billion for border security; $2.0 billion for security at nuclear power, water, and other critical infrastructure facilities, and for mail screening. The White House opposed the effort, warning of ``permanent spending on other projects that have nothing to do with stimulus and that will only expand the size of government.''

I could go on with example after example. But I shall simply ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record a litany of these projects.

The President has tried to convince the American people that they are safer because he created a new Department of Homeland Security. Well, reorganizing the deck chairs of our bureaucracy does not make us safer. It takes money. Money.

I have offered this amendment in the hopes the Senate will accept it and that we might take it to conference. This is an opportunity to do what we should do in order to save our people and their homes.

I thank my distinguished friend from Nevada for his contribution to this debate. I thank my friend from Mississippi, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on which I serve, the subcommittee making appropriations for homeland security. I thank that Senator. He does the best he can do and has done the best he can do, but he is limited in what he can do. I thank him for his cooperation, for his manner of holding the hearings. He has always been very fair. I thank him. I thank other members of the subcommittee.

But we need to do more. My amendment is an opportunity for the Senate to do more.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I did not hear the point of order as it was being made, but I understand it has been made.

Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays. But I also ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that there may be a few minutes for debate of the point of order and/or the motion to waive.

How much time do we have remaining?

Very well. Mr. President, I commend the chairman for the work he has done. Nothing I have said is in any way any criticism of his work. I commend him for producing a balanced bill. Given the constraints under which we are being forced to operate, he has done his best. I have no criticism of him whatsoever, but I would argue that $2 billion is not that large for the very short list of programs in this amendment that address vulnerabilities that are well known. Indeed, most of these programs have been authorized by the Congress and the President and this amendment tries to provide the authorized funding.

Regarding the Deepwater Program, the Coast Guard authorization bill Public Law 108-293 authorizes $1.1 billion for the Coast Guard's Deepwater Acquisition Program. My amendment provides an additional $324 million to meet the authorization level for this critical activity.

It was the USA PATRIOT Act, Public Law 107-56, which authorized a tripling of the number of border patrol agents and legacy immigration and Customs agents on the northern border. That law was passed nearly 3 years ago and this administration has failed to provide the funds to meet the authorization. My amendment adds $50 million so we can get nearly one-third of the way toward meeting the requirements of the law.

The Maritime Transportation Security Act, Public Law 107-295, created the Port Security Grant Program. It called upon the Coast Guard to provide estimates of the costs for that program. The Coast Guard has estimated that $1.125 billion will be needed in the first year and $5.4 billion will be needed over the next 10 years for the ports to comply with the Federal regulations mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act which was signed into law by President Bush with great fanfare in November 2002.

Despite the President's paucity of funding requests to implement the law, the Congress has stepped up to the plate and has appropriated a total of $493 million towards these grants.

The Senate version of the budget resolution assumed that $275 million will be appropriated for port security grants in fiscal year 2005. The bill before us today provides $150 million. By adopting this amendment, the Congress still will have provided over 4 years only $768 million of the Coast Guard's first-year cost estimate of $1.125 billion for port security grants, but the additional $125 million in this amendment will meet the assumption for port security grants made in the Senate budget resolution.

On May 6, 2004, the Senate Banking Committee, on a bipartisan basis, reported S. 2453 which authorizes $5.2 billion over the period of fiscal year 2005-2007 for transit security activities under its jurisdiction. On May 21, 2004, the Senate Commerce Committee, also on a bipartisan basis, reported S. 2273 which authorizes more than $1 billion for rail security activities under its jurisdiction over the period of fiscal year 2005-2009. My amendment provides $350 million in security grants to rail and transit systems. Combined with the funds provided in the committee-reported bill, we still fall more than halfway short in meeting the requirements of these bills. The authorization bills and the laws written and passed by this Congress by overwhelming margins and signed into law by the President clearly demonstrate a far greater funding

need than that contained in my amendment. My amendment, which would implement several 9/11 Commission recommendations, is but a small step in meeting the homeland security requirements authorized already by the Congress.

The President has said he would do whatever it takes. However, his budget takes a hike when it comes to actually funding homeland security.

I note that, and I agree with Chairman Cochran, we must operate within limits on spending, but the limits must be set at a level that allows the Congress to fund homeland security programs that address clear dangers. We are debating an amendment that provides $2 billion for securing our homeland. In the last 3 years, the President has signed three tax cuts. These tax cuts increased our Federal deficit for fiscal year 2005 by $232 billion. Where were the limits? Where were the limits on the tax cuts? Where are those voices who say we are overdoing it in this amendment? Where were they when it came to the tax cuts? Did we overdo the tax cuts?

The President increased our deficits for fiscal year 2005 by $232 billion in tax cuts, but we cannot afford $2 billion today for securing our rail systems, for securing our chemical plants, or making sure a terrorist does not blow another plane out of the sky.

In summary, in the nearly 3 years since the tragic events of 9/11, I have pressed the Senate to provide additional resources for homeland security and the President consistently opposed those efforts. He went so far as to threaten to veto bills if they included what the administration characterized as wasteful spending. Let me give a few examples of funding contained in those amendments that certainly would have helped make America safer.

In November of 2001, Senate Democrats supported my amendment to include $15 billion for homeland security in an economic stimulus package, including $4 billion for bioterrorism and food safety, $4.6 billion for State and local law enforcement and fire training and equipment and Federal computer improvements, $3.3 billion for transportation security, including airport and port security, $1.1 billion for border security, $2.0 billion for security at nuclear power, water, and other critical infrastructure facilities, and for mail screening. The White House opposed the effort, warning of ``permanent spending on other projects that have nothing to do with stimulus and that will only expand the size of Government.''

On November 28, 2001, Office of Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge wrote to me and said, ``. . . no additional resources to protect the homeland beyond what the President has already requested are needed at this time.''

Senate Republicans, under pressure from the White House, objected to the ``emergency designation'' for the homeland security funding and voted to block the funding.

On December 4, 2001, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported, by a vote of 29-0, the fiscal year 2002 Defense appropriations bill. This bill included $13.1 billion for homeland security programs, $8.7 billion above the President's request. In a meeting with congressional leaders, President Bush threatened to veto the Defense appropriations bill that contained the additional homeland security funding.

On December 6, 2001, Senate Republicans, voted against the ``emergency designation'' for the homeland security funding. As a result, homeland security funding was reduced by $4.6 billion, from $13.1 billion to $8.5 billion.

Under further pressure from the White House, conferees further reduced homeland defense funding from $8.5 billion to $8.3 billion, a level that was still $3.9 billion above the President's request. In reducing the funding from $13.1 billion to $8.3 billion, funding was reduced for bioterrorism and food safety, border security, airport security, port security, nuclear facility security, and postal security.

In June of 2002, by a bipartisan vote of 71-22, the Senate passed a supplemental appropriations bill that included $8.3 billion for homeland security. The funding was allocated based on a series of five bipartisan hearings held by the Senate Appropriations Committee when the committee heard testimony from Governors, mayors, police, fire fighters, emergency medical and other first responders, port security specialists and other experts in the field of counterterrorism, seven cabinet officers and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

On June 17, 2002, the President's senior advisors recommended a veto of the Senate version of the supplemental bill because it included what they asserted was excessive homeland security spending.

Under pressure from the White House, the conferees agreed to reduce homeland defense funding from $8.3 billion to $6.7 billion. Funding was reduced for food safety, for cyber security, for solving the first responder radio interoperability problem, for nuclear security, for increased lab capacity to determine whether biological or chemical weapons have been used in a potential attack, for airport security, port security, and water security.

Then, in August of 2002, the President refused to spend $2.5 billion that Congress had approved for homeland security. The President chose not to make the emergency designation, asserting that the contingency emergency fund contained wasteful spending.

In making that decision, the President blocked funding for homeland defense programs that would have specifically addressed known shortcomings including: firefighting grants; security improvements at our nuclear plants and labs; grants to make police and fire communications equipment interoperable in response to weaknesses identified on September 11; port security grants; airport security funding, including funds for more Federal air marshals; Coast Guard funding; law enforcement resources for State and local governments for police equipment and training; FBI funding for counter terrorism and information technology enhancements; urban search and rescue teams; cyber security improvements to protect our economy; food and water security, including funds for addressing the threat of mad cow disease; border security; dam and reservoir security; and Customs Service funds to increase the number and quality of the inspections of the six million cargo containers that come into this country each year.

President Bush announced at his economic forum in Texas that he was rejecting the $2.5 billion bipartisan homeland security funding package. President Bush said, ``I made my opposition clear. We were pretty plain-spoken. . . I understand Congress's position, and today, they're going to learn mine. We'll spend none of it.''

In connection with the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations legislation, the White House said, ``the administration strongly opposes amendments to add new extraneous spending to the package.'' On January 16, 2003, Senate Republicans fell in line behind the President and voted 45-51 to defeat an amendment that I offered to add $5 billion for homeland security activities for port security, airport security, border security, nuclear security, and for implementing the President's smallpox vaccine plan.

My amendment included $300 million for mass transit security. Perhaps if that amendment had been adopted, we would be better prepared today to prevent a terrorist attack on our subways, buses and trains.

On January 29, 2003, the President, in his State of the Union message to the Congress said, ``Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people.''

Three months later, on April 2 and 3, 2003, the White House opposed all five amendments that I prepared for consideration on the fiscal year 2003 emergency Iraq/Afghanistan war supplemental to increase funding for homeland security programs. In total, the amendments would have provided $9 billion, $4.8 billion more than the President requested. All of the amendments were defeated on virtual party-line votes. Funding was rejected for radiation and portal monitors, for grants to public transit agencies for security of transit facilities against chemical, biological, and other terrorist threats, for grants to improve communications within and among first responders, for funds for the Coast Guard to implement the Automated Identification System and other tracking systems to

actively track and monitor vessels operating in United States waters, for port security, and for the FBI.

Then, in July of 2003, I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security appropriations bill to add $1.75 billion for homeland security programs. The amendment was defeated 43-50. The amendment included funds to implement several authorization laws that the President had signed shortly after 9/11, but then failed to either adequately fund or fund at all, including the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, and the USA PATRIOT Act. Once again, funding was rejected for mass-transit security, for securing the northern border, for air-cargo security, for port security and for first responders.

In the September 2003 conference on the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security appropriations bill, I tried again to add $1.25 billion to the bill, and the effort was defeated on party-line vote of the conferees of 8-9. The amendment would have added $375 million for port security grants, $400 million for aviation security, $66 million for implementation of port security enhancements required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act, $34 million for the Coast Guard Deepwater Program, $125 million for 1,300 additional Customs inspectors at the borders, $200 million for first responder grants, and $50 million to enhance security at chemical facilities.

I urge that the Senate waive the point of order.

Mr. President, first, I thank all Senators for their cooperation in the handling of the bill yesterday. We made progress in disposing of several amendments. We also achieved a very important milestone in the handling of the bill. We have an agreed list of amendments that are in order to the bill. This will limit the offering of amendments to only those on the list. We appreciate very much Senators permitting us to enter that order last evening.

The bill provides total new budget authority for fiscal year 2005 of $33.1 billion to fund the Department. In addition, an estimated $2.9 billion in collections from offsetting collections from user-financed services, Customs duties, and trust funds will be available to finance activities of the Department for fiscal year 2005.

Excluding mandatory appropriations for retired pay of the United States Coast Guard, the bill provides $32 billion in discretionary spending, consistent with the amount allocated by the full committee for this bill. This is $896 million more than the President's fiscal year 2005 discretionary spending request; and $2.8 billion more than the fiscal year 2004 appropriations level, excluding emergency supplemental appropriations and including a $1.6 billion increase in the availability of advance appropriations for biodefense countermeasures.

The additional amount above the President's request level is used to increase funding to assist State and local first responders, to enhance aviation security, to harden critical infrastructures that are potential targets to terrorists, and to better secure our ports and waterways.

The bill also attempts to address the most critical outstanding need, that of rail and transit security. This proposal includes $150 million for rail and transit security grants; $34 million for high explosives countermeasures, including $24 million for commuter and passenger rail environments; $194 million for protective actions, including protective measures for rail; and $15 million for rail inspectors and canine explosives detection teams.

The bill recommends $632 million for management and operations of the Department, including $65 million requested by the President to continue to consolidate the Department's headquarters operations at the Nebraska Avenue Complex.

To secure our Nation's borders and enforce and investigate customs and immigration laws, the bill recommends total appropriations of $8.7 billion, including $5 billion for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and $3.4 billion for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This includes an increase of $50 million more than the request level for the Federal air marshals.

An increase of $64 million is provided for the container security initiative. This initiative seeks to enhance the security of an indispensable, but vulnerable, link in the chain of global trade: the oceangoing shipping container. Proactively screening containers before they reach the United States will significantly contribute to efforts to secure the borders against dangers that might be introduced through commercial trade. A more secure maritime trade infrastructure will ensure the continued smooth flow of merchandise through seaports.

The illegal alien population of the United States has risen to record levels. According to the Department, the undocumented alien population has grown from approximately 3 million in 1990 to an estimated 9 million today. This bill provides $107 million in additional resources for detaining and removing such individuals from this country.

The bill also provides $478 million for the Federal Protective Service, which is the same as the President's budget request, to ensure a safe and secure workplace for Federal employees.

Also included is $340 million for U.S. VISIT, the new system to identify and track foreign visitors and students and to screen for possible terrorist or criminal involvement.

In new budget authority $140 million is provided for Citizenship and Immigration Services in addition to the $1.5 billion estimated in collections available for these operations.

For the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, responsible for ensuring security across the U.S. transportation system, including aviation, railways, highways, and ports, the bill provides total funding of $5.2 billion, $184 million more than the President's budget request, and $648 million more than the fiscal year 2004 level. In addition, it assumes $400 million less than the President's request in offsetting aviation security fee collections. While the bill does not contain the President's requested legislative proposal to mandate the level of fees, it does require the General Accounting Office to initiate review activities necessary to resolve the appropriate level of fee collections based on calendar year 2000 airline security costs.

Over 53 percent of the funds made available for TSA are provided for Federal screeners at our Nation's commercial airports. This includes $2.8 billion for aviation security personnel compensation and benefits, and training of passenger and baggage screeners. Also provided for aviation security is $161 million for passenger checkpoint support and $210 million for the purchase of baggage explosive detection systems.

For airport security direction and enforcement, $872 million is provided, including $293 million for airport information technology support, $25 million for Federal flight deck officer training, and $43 million for air cargo security and enforcement.

For maritime and surface transportation security activities, the bill provides $55 million for transportation worker identification credentials; $15 million for rail security efforts; $17 million for hazardous materials driver license endorsement program; and $24 million for maritime and land security staffing, operational oversight, and administration of maritime and land grant functions.

To further improve transportation security, $181 million is provided for research and development of the latest technologies to detect and deter terrorist attacks, including $57 million for research and development of next generation explosive detection systems, and $75 million for research and development of new technologies to screen air cargo.

This bill provides nearly $7.5 billion for the United States Coast Guard, including $5.2 billion for military pay and operation of bases and $1.1 billion for upgrading and replacing the Coast Guard's cutters, helicopters and planes.

Currently, the Coast Guard is deployed in support of operations in Iraq, is conducting its new homeland security mission, and is maintaining its traditional missions such as marine resource protection and drug interdiction.

The Coast Guard's deepwater recapitalization program is funded at $776 million, $98 million more than the President's request level.

For the United States Secret Service, the President's budget request of $1.2 billion is fully funded to support the Service's protective and investigative missions.

For the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, $224 million is included to provide preeminent law enforcement training to more than 20,000 Federal law enforcement professionals in the coming fiscal year.

To further strengthen the capacity of the Nation's first responders, a total of $3.7 billion is provided for the new Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, created

by the Secretary of Homeland Security through the use of his reorganization authority. The Department's grant programs have been consolidated under this new office. Included in the amount recommended is $1.37 billion for State and local basic formula grants, including law enforcement terrorism prevention grants; and $1.2 billion for urban area security initiative discretionary grants.

Within the urban area security initiative, specific funds have been provided, $150 million for port security grants, $150 million for rail and transit security grants, $15 million for trucking security grants, and $10 million for intercity bus security grants.

The bill also provides $700 million for firefighter assistance grants and $180 million for emergency management performance grants. Both of these programs are continued under the consolidated office as stand- alone programs.

The bill provides over $5.6 billion for programs and activities of the Directorate for Emergency Preparedness and Response which was created with the transfer of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to the new Department of Homeland Security.

This appropriation includes over $231.499 million for preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery activities, including $30 million for 28 strategically located urban search and rescue teams.

Disaster assistance is funded at $2.151 billion, as requested in the President's budget. The President's request of $2.15 billion is based on the historical yearly average of $2.9 billion, and relies on an anticipated carryover balance from the previous year to meet the needs of disaster victims.

Previously appropriated funds of $2.528 billion, will be available for fiscal year 2005 for Project BioShield to spur the development of biodefense countermeasures.

In addition, the bill assumes the transfer of the Strategic National Stockpile to the Department of Health and Human Services, as proposed in the President's budget.

For the Department's information analysis and infrastructure protection activities, the bill recommends $876 million to identify and assess current threats to the homeland, map threat information against current vulnerabilities, issue timely warnings, and take preventive and protective action.

A critical component of IAIP is the development and implementation of protective actions for the Nation's critical infrastructures. The bill provides $193 million to carry out activities including the buffer zone and site security program for protection of chemical facilities, nuclear power plants, nuclear spent fuel storage facilities, water treatment facilities, bridges, subways, tunnels, and other critical infrastructures.

To identify these critical infrastructures and their vulnerabilities, to assess identified risks, and to deploy a database of critical infrastructures, the bill provides $65 million.

The bill provides $92 million to allow for the Department to share data with infrastructure owners and operators regarding vulnerabilities and for the hosting of departmental applications, network connectivity, and critical data storage.

As part of the effort by IAIP to better secure not only physical assets but also cyber assets, the bill includes $67 million to monitor, predict, and prevent cyber attacks, to minimize the damage from and to efficiently recover from attacks.

For science and technology, total appropriations of $1.1 billion are recommended to support homeland security through basic and applied research; to develop prototypes; and to procure technologies to detect, destroy, dispose, and mitigate the effects of weapons of mass destruction.

Of this amount, the bill provides $346 million for biological countermeasures to deter, detect, and mitigate acts of biological terrorism against the United States.

The bill also provides $128 million for nuclear and radiological countermeasures for use in operational environments; $52 million for the development of technologies to defend against attacks by chemical warfare agents or toxic industrial chemicals; and $34 million for high explosives countermeasures, including $24 million for rail security high explosives countermeasures.

A total of $75 million is made available for the rapid development and prototyping of new technologies in support of homeland security.

The bill also continues funding of $69 million for the establishment of a university-based system to enhance and strengthen the efforts of homeland security on our Nation's campuses.

Funding of $61 million is provided for research, development, testing, and evaluation of an anti-missile system for commercial aircraft.

Mr. President, I know other Senators wish to speak on the bill, and some want to make opening statements. I think particularly the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has a statement to make on the bill.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has offered an amendment that would increase the Homeland Security appropriations bill, according to the CBO, by $2 billion.

A variety of accounts are included in the amendment for increases. The Customs and Border Protection account, for example, would be increased under the Senator's amendment by $50 million for northern border staffing and $50 million for radiation detectors at ports of entry.

The bill we have before us already includes a $50 million increase for radiation detectors. The Department has met the goal already of tripling the number of border patrol agents on the northern border. Funds were provided last year in the Homeland Security appropriations bill to ensure that more border patrol agents would be deployed on the northern border. We have provided significant increases for inspector staffing since September 11, 2001. We have included funds, for example, for radiation detection equipment and other detection systems along the northern border.

Last year, Congress provided funding for the permanent establishment of the first northern border air wing to be located in Bellingham, WA. Resources are being made available for a second northern border air wing in New York. We expect further funds will be requested to continue the expansion of coverage of the northern border in future years. It is a challenging undertaking. That border covers over 5,000 miles. It is a daunting task. We cannot accomplish in 1 year or with one amendment all of the goals we have to enhance and improve the protection of our homeland by more sophisticated, more modern deployments along the northern border, but we are making and have made important strides. We cannot achieve every goal immediately. It is going to take time.

My suggestion in opposing this amendment is that we are appropriately identifying the priorities and making the funds available to achieve the goals in a thoughtful, coherent, and successful fashion. The administration is proposing increases in these accounts. We have accommodated those proposals. We have added to many of

the proposals over and above what the administration has requested.

Another example in this amendment offered by my friend proposes a $50 million increase in the Federal Air Marshal program. The Department has worked to supplement resources for these activities by using transfer authority to increase resources. The Department has used other Federal law enforcement officers to provide additional flight coverage on commercial airliners as needed. The committee recognizes in this bill the needs of this organization, and we have provided an additional $50 million in this bill for this next fiscal year for Federal Air Marshals out of additional funds provided to this Committee.

Another account is Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Senator's amendment would add an additional $11 million for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Alternatives to Detention program. The bill already provides $14.2 million--an increase of $11 million--providing funding for 30 new positions, as requested by the President, to expand the Alternatives to Detention program. This amendment, if we agree to it, would expand the program 12-fold in a single year.

Another account, Transportation Security Administration. The Senator's amendment proposes a $104 million increase for the Transportation Security Administration for enhanced passenger checkpoint screening and hazardous material security grants. Last year, our committee proposed and Congress approved $153.2 million for these activities. In this bill for next year, we have included $344.3 million for passenger and baggage screener training of all newly hired screeners and for recurrent and advanced technical training for the entire screener workforce to meet proficiency and qualification standards. In addition to the training of screeners, funding is included for an annual proficiency evaluation of all screeners and supervisors to ensure that the screener workforce meets all of the qualifications and standards required to perform their duties as required by the Aviation Transportation Security Act.

For this fiscal year, 2004, $33 million was made available for airport passenger security checkpoint support. For this next fiscal year, in this bill we provide $161 million--$128 million more than last year's level and $75 million more than the President's request. This bill is meeting the challenge. We are providing the funds that will enable the Department of Homeland Security to have well-trained, well- qualified personnel doing these jobs in our airports, that will meet the requirements of the law and also meet the expectations we all have to use the airlines for qualified, capable, and dependable workforce participants.

The additional funding we have provided above the President's request is available also to deploy explosive trace detection portals, taking advantage of new technologies that are being developed which help ensure that we do the best possible job, the most thorough job of making sure people are not getting on the airplanes with explosive materials. This is something the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has made a point of in our hearings and in statements on the Senate floor--the challenge that is provided by these dangers. We are doing what ought to be done by providing the funds to take advantage of new technology, to encourage development of new technology to help us meet these goals.

The Senator's amendment also proposes a $324 million increase in the Coast Guard's Deepwater capitalization budget. I am excited about the Deepwater Program and the plans the Coast Guard has for modernizing and improving its fleet. This needs to be done. In testimony in our hearings, we learned that some of our Coast Guard cutters have hulls that are rusting away. Some are dangerous to operate. They are a threat in some cases to the men and women who serve in the Coast Guard. We cannot tolerate that. So it is time for us to make new investments in refurbishing and building new ships and boats for the Coast Guard, and other equipment, such as helicopters. The whole point is the bill we presented to the Senate, though, funds each asset requested in the budget within the Coast Guard's acquisition, construction, and improvement account. It has requested funds it can reasonably and efficiently use in the next fiscal year, and our committee has recognized and agreed with this need to address the top priorities of the Coast Guard sooner rather than later.

So we have increased the funding for reengineering the HH-65 helicopter and have moved forward the plan design of the offshore patrol cutter.

You cannot build a ship, though, before it is designed. You cannot modernize before you have the preliminary work done. So what we are doing is providing the funds that can be used by the Coast Guard to advance the construction program and to modernize their fleet.

The bill before us has already increased the Deepwater account $98 million above the President's request. We are bordering on overdoing it already, but I am satisfied these additions are necessary and they are justified. Going to the level proposed in this amendment is overdoing it.

In the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, the distinguished Senator's amendment would add over $700 million to the First Responder Grant Programs.

Some Senators have suggested that we carefully review the Hart-Rudman report, which I did when I was asked to serve as chairman of this subcommittee and talked with my good friend, the former Senator from New Hampshire, who helped write that report to get his thoughts and to find out all I could about their suggestions.

What they suggested was there was a $98 billion unfunded need for first responders, but the report says this: The budget estimates are preliminary and the estimates they make in their report are preliminary. It depends upon other factors. And the report ``cannot be more precise in the absence of systematic national requirements methodology and that the development of such a methodology is badly needed.''

Rather than bank on a number that was reached up and brought out of thin air, the administration has gone to a more authoritative Commission that was given the responsibility of doing what they said, and that is to develop a methodology.

That has been done and suggested by the Commission, the Gilmore Commission. It is an advisory panel to assess domestic response capabilities for terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction.

The Gilmore Commission's final report, which was issued in December of 2003, includes the following statement:

Prognostication about the amount of funding that the

Federal Government should provide in the near future is

premature at best. Recent calls for the funding upward of

$100 billion is, in our view, not the wisest approach.

Federal funds have started to flow. Absent a more clear

articulation of an end state and the levels of preparedness

sought to be achieved with some reasonable way to measure our

efforts, any attempts to establish an overall price tag is

mere speculation and could be politically unwise.

I agree with that. We have carefully reviewed at our hearings the testimony of experts, those who are in the administration as well who have responsibilities for administering these programs. We have questioned them. We have cross-examined them to find out what the facts are, what are the needs.

There is adequate funding in the pipeline, I suggest, now for first responder grants. A pipeline is only so big. You can stuff it full of money and you stop the flow. We do not want to do that. So I think we have to be careful about how much we direct the administration to spend and make sure it can be efficiently used, effectively used, and will achieve the goals we all share.

I am hopeful the Senate will agree that we should not overdo it. We do not need to overspend, and overspending is not going to make us a safer or more secure Nation. Throwing money at complex, technical problems will not produce the results we need for a safer and more secure homeland.

Having said those things in an effort to put in context the proposal that is before the Senate from the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, and my views, at least, of why we should support the committee's recommendation, additionally, I am constrained to observe that because of the Congressional Budget Office assessment that this amendment would call for spending $1.889 billion in additional funds, over and above the $32 billion that is already included in this bill, it is beyond the allocation of the committee, as agreed to by the Senate

Committee on Appropriations yesterday. And because it exceeds that allocation, I am constrained to make a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

Mr. President, haven't I made a point of order? Doesn't that require a ruling of the Chair?

Mr. President, I have no objection to there being some opportunity for debate for those who may want to debate it. I hope we can move to a vote on the motion to waive, and it should not be delayed. I understand the Democrats have a luncheon they are looking to attend some time around quarter of 1. I hope we can vote before then.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Nevada made a couple of points that I think require response. One was that no funds are available in this bill for local law enforcement and other first responders for interoperable communications and other new technologies. The Senator is correct, we are not directly funding local law enforcement officials interoperable communications needs, but they are eligible for funds provided to States in this bill by the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness to help improve technologies, communications equipment, training, and other activities that are important to enhance the capabilities of the first responders, whether they are fire departments, law enforcement officials, or the like.

We are providing funds in broad grant programs to States and localities in order for them to have the ability to make the decisions at a local level in determining what their greatest needs may be.

In addition, the National Sheriffs Association, for example, has developed a nationwide program for other sheriffs' departments--the Pegasus Program--I know some sheriffs in my State are actively involved in helping convince others they ought to take advantage of that program. I know another program in my State that has gotten Federal funds from the Justice Department and is available on the Mississippi Gulf Coast now, a new interoperable communications system, computer based, where laptop computer capability will be available in patrol cars, other vehicles, and in police stations, in sheriffs' departments along the Mississippi Gulf Coast so they can keep up with what each jurisdiction is doing. They will know if an arrest has been made of someone who may have escaped from a jail in one of the adjoining counties.

All of these law enforcement officials along the coast will be able to have access to that information immediately because of this new system.

So opportunities are available to local jurisdictions to take advantage of new programs that are being developed and made available to help achieve the goals that my friend talks about. We all share those goals.

One other point on that subject. The committee provides in this bill, $30 million ``for direct technical assistance to State and local governments.'' And, of this amount, $20 million, it says in the report on page 57, ``is for the Interoperable Communication Technical Assistance program to enhance interoperability of public safety communications.'' So technical assistance is available directly from funds that are in this bill to achieve the goals to which the Senator from Nevada has alluded.

We are encouraging the Department to consider designating a lead organization within the Department to provide technical assistance for interoperable communications. I think we are meeting our challenge in this area under the restraints that we have to impose. We can't fund everything directly. We don't want to get in the business of choosing one communications system over another, and I haven't meant to do that by pointing out two in my State that I happen to know about. We are letting local jurisdictions make those decisions. We do not have to make those decisions as Members of the Senate. We are not competent to make those decisions. So I don't want to start writing into our bill a specific communication system and then funding it and trying to make it available to all of the jurisdictions throughout the United States. We would run out of money quickly if we tried to do that.

But I think we are meeting the challenge, and I hope Senators will agree and will support the point of order and vote against the motion to waive the point of order.

Madam President, I appreciate very much the comments being made by the proponents of the amendment. But the fact is, it increases funding in this bill by over $15 billion, and there is no offset for it.

There is a provision in the amendment suggesting that taxes be increased to pay for the amendment. I don't think it is consistent with the Budget Act in terms of offsetting spending. We are confronted with an allocation of a limited amount of money to appropriate for all of the programs under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. We are at the level of our allocation. So if we approve an amendment that exceeds that allocation, we have to reduce other accounts in this bill to pay for that amendment.

This amendment is subject to a budget point of order. It is the intention of the manager of the bill to make that point of order and to suggest that the Chair sustain that point of order.

Having said that, let me make a couple of other points about the comments that have been made about the fact that we are not doing enough. That is easy to say. We all know there is a lot to be done. The budget process of the Congress is restricted under its terms because we do have constraints on how much we can spend. If we overdo it, for whatever the reason, and go beyond the limitations we have imposed on ourselves to help ensure guaranteed opportunities for economic growth, expansion of the economy and the private sector, and all of the rest, we are not doing our job with respect to the integrity of the budget process. Any good-sounding program will be met with enthusiastic applause if you say: Let's increase that. It would be good for the country. Well, of course. But we have to have limits. Those limits have been imposed by ourselves, on ourselves, and now some Senators come to the Senate floor and say that is not enough for this program because it is so important.

These are important programs. The firefighter assistant grant program is very important. That is why we put $700 million in this bill for that program. The domestic preparedness grants program is a very important program. It contributes to making our country safer and more secure. That is why we put $2.8 billion in this bill for those grants. They will go to State and local governments. State and local governments will decide how they use those funds, consistent with plans that have been developed at the State and local level under the guidelines of the Department of Homeland Security.

Emergency management performance grants are involved here. These are first responders who work as emergency responders for medical care centers, hospitals, and the rest. We have included $180 million for those grant programs.

This amendment goes beyond some of the grant programs. It even increases funding for the base program of the Federal Law Enforcement Center by $500 million--just $500 million more than has already been appropriated for the base program for this center to use.

Well, my point is, because the amendment asks for spending $15 billion that we don't have in our allocation, we are constrained to make a point of order. I do think we need to recognize that important progress is being made. I know in my State the State government officials and the local mayors, local board of aldermen, the city council persons have done a very important job of identifying their own needs, how they can better improve the facilities, the infrastructure, the training of personnel, equipping of personnel at the local level, and then applying for the grants made available through the new Federal programs for homeland security. We are seeing improvements made. I am very happy we are making progress in that area.

My good friend from Connecticut suggests the Hart-Rudman report of that task force should be considered, and we have considered that. I think one of the first calls I made after I realized I was going to serve as chairman of this Appropriations Committee subcommittee was to Warren Rudman, my friend from New Hampshire, a former colleague whom I respect a great deal. His advice has been very helpful to me.

That Warren Rudman report was written several years ago, as we probably realize. Of course, they wrote a recent paper for the Council on Foreign Relations that got a lot of attention. I read an article that was published in the Council on Foreign Relations magazine as a result of that task force report. That is all helpful to us. We are carefully considering suggestions from people with ideas of how we can more effectively reorganize our agencies and provide funding for different programs that are important, and I think we have made great progress. We are definitely wiser, safer, and more secure as a result of the efforts by this administration, local and State government leaders, with the support of this Congress, in providing generous new appropriations for activities that previously were not funded at the levels they should have been funded in the Federal budget.

We are going to continue to make progress--I am optimistic--with the further support of this Congress and a strong record of accomplishment that will be continued by this administration. We will definitely see the results pay off for safer and more secure American citizens.

Madam President, I am advised that we have the time set for a vote at 2 o'clock for the Byrd amendment, or a motion to waive the Budget Act for the Byrd amendment. It would be my hope that we could set a time for voting on the Dodd amendment--or if the point of order that I make is sustained after the motion to waive is made--and that we could set that vote to occur after the vote on the Byrd amendment. That would be my intention.

I say that to give all Senators notice of the intention of the manager of the bill to have that vote occur at 2 o'clock. We hope that will be possible.

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

Madam President, I make a point of order against the Dodd amendment on the grounds that it violates the Budget Act, section 302(b) of the Budget Act.

What is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to address a few remarks made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle during yesterday's debate on the class action bill. First, they repeatedly accused the leader of jeopardizing the chances of getting this bill passed by filling in the amendment tree. Give me a break. That is the phoniest argument I have ever heard. The fact is, they are trying to kill this bill, and they are probably going to be effective in doing so.

I hate to give up--and I haven't given up yet--but that is what is happening. I have been through it so many times around here that I know when there is a real desire to kill a bill. The way you do it is with nongermane amendments that are called killer amendments or poison pills, because they are political amendments one side or the other does not want. The leader filled the tree because he wanted to protect the bill from extraneous amendments that would eliminate any chances of this measure becoming law. Anybody who argues otherwise is being deceptive.

Everyone here knows the class action bill was an extremely attractive vehicle for extraneous amendments, especially those amendments that were sure to be offered for the sole purpose of scoring political points during an election year. But what my Democratic colleagues conveniently overlook is this bill will find itself in the recycle bin if it is saddled with a host of irrelevant amendments. While this is certainly a win/win situation for those on the other side of the aisle who oppose this bill, apparently including some of the Democratic leadership, I find it a truly puzzling outcome for those who say they support class action reform. Not only does a loaded bill risk peeling away Senate votes from the underlying class action measure, it will, in all certainty, undergo changes when it goes through the House. And what happens then? Do we have a conference to resolve our differences? I think the answer is a resounding no. I don't think the other side is going to permit this because this bill flies in the face of the demands of one of their greatest hard money constituent givers, and that is the trial lawyers of America.

We all know there is little time left in this Congress to go through the motion of doing a conference. I think the chances of getting a conference done in this election year with two conventions and with all the problems we have to address. The appointment of conferees is further cast into doubt by virtue of the minority leader's threat earlier in the year to the appointment of conferees for the rest of the year. So if you add these poison amendments to this bill, these extraneous amendments that have nothing to do with the bill, you are basically killing the bill. Everybody knows that. The majority leader had no choice other than to do what he did.

I certainly did not hear any assurances from the minority leader yesterday on whether he would consent to the appointment of conferees to this bill. As such, I am led to believe his position remains unchanged. But even if he did consent, I don't think there would be enough time to do a conference. We have 62 people who said they would support this bill. That means all 62 should vote for cloture so we can actually pass this bill. But unfortunately, we have some who agreed they would vote for cloture--that was the whole reason for the agreement last November--and are now changing their minds and saying, well, this is something I can't support because we want our colleagues to have their right to put poison pills on this bill.

(Mr. TALENT assumed the Chair.)

Well, they cannot have it both ways. Let me be clear. It is because of the potential feeding frenzy that the leader moved to safeguard the bill from an open season on nongermane, nonrelevant, extraneous amendments. He did it to advance the ball on this legislation so it can be considered without the same initiatives we saw with other measures that were considered by the Senate this year. He did it with the hope of reaching a time agreement on amendments. He was not being unreasonable. He even allowed one nongermane amendment the Democrats have tried to get an up or down vote on all year, which members on this side feel is a terrible amendment. But probably it would pass, who knows. At least some think it would probably pass. I think there needs to be a substitute amendment to it that would probably pass.

I want to remind my Democratic colleagues the majority leader made three extremely generous offers regarding the consideration of germane and nongermane amendments.

First, he asked unanimous consent that amendments be limited to five related amendments to be offered by each side. So nobody would be foreclosed from offering the amendments they might think are important. When the minority leader objected to the offer, he expanded the request to include 10 related amendments on each side. I don't know how he could have been more fair. When the minority leader rejected this even more generous counterproposal, the majority

leader yet again expanded the agreement to include an unlimited number of related amendments. In other words, amendments that are pertinent to the bill, that are at least germane. Again, the minority leader rejected this third offer. Of course, let us not forget each offer included an up-or-down vote on a nongermane amendment that the Democrats demanded, which is an amendment by Senator Kennedy on the minimum wage.

We also heard yesterday that filling the amendment tree was unprecedented, and we are somehow committing a terrible wrong against the institution of the Senate. How soon we forget the past. I remind my colleagues that the minority leader filled the tree in October of 2002 on the homeland security bill, which was even a more important bill than this one, although this is an extremely important bill for this country. Mind you, he filled the tree after promising at the beginning of his tenure as then-majority leader he would never fill the tree. But he did so, anyway. To be sure, we even saw Senator Byrd do it when he was the majority leader. Unprecedented? Come on, give me a break. Terrible wrong?

Let us not hide behind Senate process in order to play both sides of the fence on class action reform. I said it yesterday, and I will say it again today: S. 2062 represents a bipartisan agreement we reached in good faith with key Democrats who say they support class action reform. We agreed to a number of their amendments in order to get them to agree to vote for cloture. That was the agreement. And implied in that agreement was to vote down poison pill amendments that would kill the bill. Otherwise, they weren't sincere; we know they must have been at the time, but they would not have been sincere in the bipartisan agreement we reached. We reached a compromise because I thought the ultimate goal was to get class action enacted into law.

Let me be clear when I say my agreement to further moderate this bill was in no way predicated on letting this legislation become a ``Christmas tree'' for unrelated measures. This is never the way we have done business around here. Our agreement was about getting class action reform enacted, and that is the very direction our leader is moving us toward. I can only hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who say they support this bill can see that. A deal is a deal. They should not break it because politically it might be in their best interest to do so. That works both ways. We should not break it because politically it might be in our best interest to bring up extraneous, nongermane amendments and make them vote on them.

Another argument my colleagues on the other side raised repeatedly yesterday was the Judicial Conference and the Chief Justice of the United States are somehow opposed to this bill. I have heard this point made over and over. I think it is about time to set the record straight.

Let me start by saying Chief Justice Rehnquist has never written a letter, issued a statement, nor published an opinion that comes out in opposition to this bill. Rather, my colleagues who make this claim rely on outdated letters from the Federal Judicial Conference espousing opinions on prior iterations of this bill--prior iterations, not the same language of this bill.

On two prior occasions, the Judicial Conference expressed opposition to earlier bills, as offered in the 106th and 107th Congresses that would have expanded Federal diversity jurisdictions over purported class actions. But in March of last year, a substantial shift in position occurred. In a March 26, 2003, letter to the Judiciary Committee, the Judicial Conference expressed its position on the bill by stating:

That Congress may decide to base a statutory approach to

remedy current problems with class action litigation by using

minimal diversity litigation. The Conference position

recognizes that the use of minimal diversity may be

appropriate to the maintenance of significant multi-State

class action litigation in the Federal courts.

The Judicial Conference also suggested employing provisions to raise the jurisdictional threshold and fashioning exceptions that would preserve a role for the State courts in the handling of in-State class actions.

Senator Feinstein offered an amendment during the ensuing markup that was directly responsive to these suggestions. Those changes were reflected in the version of the bill reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee in early April 2003.

Perhaps more important than what was said is what was not said. Nowhere in the letter does the Judicial Conference express opposition to the bill now in consideration. I think this silence is deafening and speaks for itself on where the Judicial Conference stands.

I ask unanimous consent that the March 26 Judicial Conference letter be printed in the Record.

To be sure, on the very day the bill was reported from committee, the ranking member sent letters to the Judicial Conference requesting comments on the revised version of S. 274 as reported out of committee and further urging that the Judicial Conference propose alternative legislative language reflecting its views on how the jurisdictional provisions should be structured.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter of April 11, 2003, from Senator Leahy be printed in the Record.

In its April 25 response, the Judicial Conference noted that the markup changes to S. 274 were responsive to its previous comments about changing the jurisdictional threshold and preserving the role of the State courts in handling State class actions. Indeed, the Judicial Conference expressed no opposition to the revised version of S. 274 reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee.

The Judicial Conference explicitly declined Senator Leahy's invitation to propose alternative language. The Judicial Conference's resolution deliberately avoided specific legislative language out of deference to Congress' judgment and the political process. The letter further noted that:

[T]hese issues implicate fundamental interests and

relationships that are political in nature and are peculiarly

within Congress' province.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter of April 25, the Judicial Conference response, be printed in the Record.

The Judicial Conference concluded its letter by stating:

We are grateful that Congress is working to resolve the

serious problems generated by overlapping and competing class

actions.

Finally, another piece of evidence that counters the Judicial Conference's purported opposition to the class action bill is Chief Justice Rehnquist's 2003 year-end report on the Federal judiciary. While this report criticizes various legislative measures considered by the Congress, absolutely no mention is made of class action reform efforts.

I suppose this begs the question then, if the Judicial Conference and Chief Justice Rehnquist stand opposed to this bill, why is there no reference to such a measure in their year-end report?

Again, I think the silence speaks for itself. I ask my colleagues to refer to the 2003 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary which can be found easily enough on the Supreme Court's website.

With all of this said, is it credible to suggest that the Judicial Conference, much less the Chief Justice of the United States, stands somehow opposed to the class action bill? I think not.

I will refer to this ``myth'' chart. The myth is that the Federal Judicial Conference opposes the Class Action Fairness Act.

These are the facts: The Conference's opposition was directed at class action bills in previous Congresses. In March 2003, the Conference strongly criticized the current class action system and suggested several areas to modify the Class Action Fairness Act.

After the Class Action Fairness Act was modified during markup, the Conference declined an invitation to criticize or revise the version favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee and thanked the Senate for its efforts to clean up the State court class action mess.

That certainly rebuts everything that was said on the floor yesterday and today by those who are looking for any excuse they can to scuttle this bill. Unfortunately, some of them are people who have agreed to support the bill. That seems apparent to me. I hope it is apparent to all of those in the various States who have relied on these agreements, and at least this agreement made last November, that we would at least vote for cloture. That was the whole issue. Then, of course, they could still have any amendment they wanted to bring up that would be germane, and they might even be able to bring up nongermane amendments if they could get a supermajority vote on them. So nothing would stop them from at least an attempt to bring up nongermane amendments.

I would like to also reply to comments made yesterday in defense--can anyone believe it?--of Madison County, IL. I heard suggestions that the Madison County court is not as renegade as we have portrayed it. After all, the number of certifications has not escalated at the same rate as the number of cases brought.

Now, this fact may have some appeal on its surface but when one looks at why the certifications are so low, I think they will find themselves right back to the inescapable conclusion that this court is a downright embarrassment to our civil justice system. Any attempt to defend Madison County's record on class certification must account for the number of class actions that were not certified because the defendants, knowing that the judicial deck was stacked against them, simply conceded defeat and settled rather than go through the motion of defending their lawsuit in this court.

As I said yesterday, the plaintiffs' lawyers who descend on this small rural courthouse in southwestern Illinois know class certification is a sure thing and that all they need to do is come up with a complaint in order to extort a settlement from the unfortunate defendants. These settlements come well before the class certification phase of the lawsuit and is exactly why this court is so attractive to greedy, dishonest lawyers--greedy, flagrantly dishonest lawyers-- looking to make a quick buck, money hungry lawyers looking to buy their next Gulfstream at the expense of everyday Americans such as Hilda Bankston, dishonorable lawyers looking to pay off their next multimillion-dollar mansion in Palm Beach, FL, at the expense of shattering public confidence in our civil justice system, and unscrupulous lawyers seeking to fund the next campaign of a State court judge who can tilt the playing field for them in yet another magnet jurisdiction.

There is something clearly rotten in middle America, and when it comes to Madison County, there is only one way to describe it: If you go there, they will pay. If someone is brought in as a defendant there, even though they do minimal business in that State, they are going to pay.

Finally, I would like to respond to the wild accusations from the other side of the aisle that the Republicans are trying to kill this bill because the measure does not go far enough to achieve class action reform. Give me a break. I do not think this accusation merits a real response, other than to observe that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will resort to just about anything in order to justify their vote against this bill, in order to justify this filibuster against this bill.

Despite all the rhetoric we have heard from the other side about how they support class action reform, about how terrible this system has become and about how we have a modest bill that fixes the problem, we will know their true colors when we vote on cloture either tonight or tomorrow.

It makes absolutely no difference whether Senators vote no because they oppose the bill or because they want to preserve the sanctity of the Senate process. A vote against cloture is a vote against class action reform. It does not get any simpler than that.

By the way, how can they make that argument when they have a right to bring up any amendment they want to after cloture is invoked? True, nongermane amendments will have to have a supermajority vote to pass, but all germane amendments only have to have a majority vote to pass. How can they make these types of clownish arguments?

To make a long story short, it is apparent that sometimes money does count around here, and the only reason this thing is fought so hard is because the major funding institution in this country happens to be the trial lawyers for those on the other side of the aisle.

Now, what galls me is that last November, when we had 59 votes for cloture, 1 less than was necessary to end the debate, we then made all kinds of concessions to three more Democrats--and I think the business community knows who they are--that are now in this bill to get their agreement that they would vote for cloture when the time came. There was no misunderstanding. Everybody knew there would be an attempt to load this bill up with poison pill amendments or killer amendments, if one wants to call them that. It meant that we at least go to cloture and get 62 votes for cloture, and I believe it meant more than that.

I think when we make a deal, those who enter into that deal agree to support the bill, against all amendments, unless we can agree otherwise. Unfortunately, that is not the interpretation of some who agreed to the deal last November. But there could be no misunderstanding. Their agreement last November was to vote for cloture. The whole issue was we lacked one vote in putting this bill before the Senate as a whole and letting it have its day in court, so to speak, in a court that is much more fair, much more balanced, and much more considerate than the courts in Madison County, IL.

There is no excuse for the arguments that have been made by the other side. If this bill goes down because we cannot get 60 votes for cloture, then shame on those who entered into the agreement with us. It was not an easy agreement for some of us because we had to make changes that literally some of us would not have made otherwise. So anybody who says this side does not want this bill to go forward is being less than candid, and I will put it in those terms, although I think probably more stark terms would be acceptable.

This is an important bill. This bill will correct some of the major wrongs in our society from a litigation standpoint. This bill is fair. It is not going to stop truly in-State lawsuits from being tried, even in Madison County, but this bill does correct some tremendously rotten situations in our country. It also would be supported by decent, honest lawyers throughout the country, at least lawyers who do not always think of the almighty dollar as the only reason they are practicing law.

This is a very important bill. There are a lot of great trial lawyers out there who I believe are embarrassed by some of the arguments that have been made by my Democratic colleagues. There are a lot of great trial lawyers who do not need phony courts, or dishonest courts, or courts that go way beyond reasonability, or courts that favor them, or magnet courts to win their cases. Great lawyers are going to be able to win their cases whether they are in State court or Federal court. In fact, I suggest they probably have an easier chance in Federal court because people automatically think those courts are more august and the cases more serious.

But here we have a case where true advantage is being taken of the class action system by a limited number of lawyers in our society who are getting fabulously wealthy and rich because of forum shopping to courts like the Madison County court that are going to find for the plaintiffs no matter what the law or the facts say. That is wrong. When plaintiffs are right, they ought to recover, but when they are not right, they should not recover. The courts ought to be the bulwark of standing for what is right and not what is wrong. In the political system that exists in Madison County, IL, it is a system that, if it is not corrupt, it is the closest thing to it.

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

Mr. President, this afternoon, I have listened to my colleagues speak courageously about their family members they have lost to suicide. My heart goes out to all of them, especially, my colleague and dear friend, Senator Gordon Smith. By speaking openly about the circumstances of his son, Garrett's death, he has raised awareness to the serious matter of youth suicide. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. I believe the Senate will approve this legislation today due primarily to Senator Smith's courage to speak openly about his own family's experience.

This legislation is necessary because it raises awareness of the alarmingly high rate of youth suicide--it is much higher than most would believe. Suicide is the third leading cause of death for young people aged 15 to 24, and the fourth leading cause of death for children between 10 and 14. My own State of Utah is ranked among the top 10 states in the nation for suicide.

I cosponsored this bill because it provides grant funding to states so each may develop a youth suicide and intervention strategy through the administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in order to prevent teen suicide. This money may be used to develop statewide early prevention and suicide intervention strategies in schools, educational institutions, juvenile justice

systems, substance abuse programs, mental health programs, foster care programs and other child and youth support organizations.

The bill also creates a federal Suicide Technical Assistance Center to provide guidance to state and local grantees on establishing standards for data collection and the evaluation of this data. Finally, this legislation provides grant funding to colleges and universities to establish or enhance their mental health outreach and treatment centers and improve their youth suicide prevention and intervention programs.

I became deeply interested in this issue when I found out that my home State of Utah suicide rates for those ages 15 to 19 have increased almost 150 percent in the last 20 years. According to the CDC, in the mid-1990s, Utah had the tenth highest suicide rate in the country and was 30 percent above the U.S. rate. This is one statistical measure on which I want to see my state at the bottom.

Teen suicide is an issue that is rapidly becoming a crisis not only in my State of Utah but throughout the entire country. Young people in the United States are taking their own lives at alarming rates. The trend of teen suicide is seeing suicide at younger ages, with the United States suicide rate for individuals under 15 years of age increasing 121 percent from 1980 to 1992.

Suicide is the second leading cause of death among college students. In a 1997 study, 21 percent of the nation's high school students reported serious thoughts about attempting suicide, with 15.7 percent making a specific plan. Although numerous symptoms, diagnoses, traits, and characteristics have been investigated, no single fact or set of factors has ever come close to predicting suicide with any accuracy.

We need to understand what the barriers are that prevent youth from receiving treatment so that we can facilitate the development of model treatment programs and public education and awareness efforts. This bill provides the funding to get these types of initiatives started.

Again, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation and I commend my colleague, Senator Gordon Smith for his commitment and dedication on this matter. I know it is such a difficult subject for him but his openness today will make a difference tomorrow.

In fact, I believe our floor discussion today on the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act has already made a difference because families who have lost someone to suicide now know that they are not alone. And, if one life is saved because of our consideration of this bill today, we have done our job.

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

Mr. President, I would like to be standing here today to debate the merits of why we should be voting for cloture on this bill. But since we all know how this vote will turn out, I just want to congratulate in advance some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for killing yet another civil justice reform measure this Congress.

The constituents that they serve--the powerful and well financed plaintiffs bar--owe them a deep debt of gratitude for not only killing class action reform but also derailing the asbestos trust fund bill, the medical malpractice reform bill, and gun liability reform bill, to name a few. Their truly special interest constituent has survived yet another year devoid of tort reform, and as a result, will continue raking in millions of dollars in cash to help finance the Democratic party in the coming months.

I am hoping the 62 people who committed to vote for cloture last November will vote for it. We can even lose two of them as long as we have 60 to vote for cloture. If we have 60, then I will feel a lot better than I do in giving these remarks.

But unlike the caution chorus that they rolled out to kill the asbestos bill, the tactics used by my Democratic colleagues to defeat class action reform have been disappointing at best, and downright disingenuous, at worst. We tried to proceed on this bill last year and were led to believe that we would command enough votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster. Indeed, before the cloture vote, we had certain members declare their support publicly for the bill. But when the moment of truth came, there was at least one member from the other side who voted against proceeding on the bill despite statements to the contrary. And what happened? We fell one vote shy of invoking cloture.

After the vote, we had three additional Democratic members come to us just days before our Thanksgiving recess eager to strike a deal on class action reform. So we listened, and we negotiated, and then we compromised. And at the end of the day, we reached an agreement on a more modest version of the class action bill. But the honeymoon certainly did not last long as the supporters of the measure started demanding extraneous labor-oriented amendments that included a measure to raise the minimum wage; a measure to extend unemployment insurance; and a measure to overturn the administration's overtime regulations.

We gave them votes on two of the three and then offered yesterday to give them a vote on the third. But of course, we all know that three was not enough.

We heard the stories of how the Senate must work its will, and how the hallmark of this institution's procedures cannot be compromised; that we must take on more extraneous amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with the business at hand. But what these colleagues know very well is that the more amendments this bill takes on, the less likely it will become law.

We have a bipartisan deal on class action reform that now stands on the verge of collapse--a broken deal that will forever stain the honor of this hallowed institution the minute the supporters of this bill cast a no vote on cloture. In a court of law, we would call it a breach of contract, but in the Senate we are not governed by common law principles when we legislate. Rather, we are governed by honor and credibility--attributes that will lose stock the minute this bill fails.

Let me just finish by saying that a vote against cloture means that you are not committed to class action reform. Let us not dance around the issue any further, and just call a spade a spade.

A vote against cloture means that you care more about helping certain unscrupulous plaintiffs' lawyers rather than every day consumers like Martha Preston, Irene Taylor and Hilda Bankston. These are the real victims whose horror stories will fall on deaf ears.

And a vote against cloture means that a deal will never be a deal unless strings are attached. That true bipartisanship will always come at a price to be disclosed later.

I have been here 28 years. I have never seen, when we finally put a deal together, people who have not been willing to live up to their commitment.

Everybody knew back in November of last year that we needed one more vote to get cloture. We compromised. We accepted amendments which we probably wouldn't have accepted because we had--we had 59 who would have voted for the bill as it was--to get those extra votes. Now there is some indication that those three votes will not be there, and we will probably lose on cloture again. I am hoping that is not true. I am hoping all three votes will be there, or at least one that will be there so that we can invoke cloture and proceed on this bill. If we can't, then I have to say this is one of the few times that I have seen where commitments are made that have not been honored that should have been honored, and it is a disgrace to this institution, in my humble opinion.

Keep in mind that if we invoke cloture, that doesn't mean those who want to bring up extraneous, nongermane amendments or nonrelevant amendments can't do it. They can bring them up after cloture, but they are going to have to get a supermajority vote to win. That doesn't foreclose them.

Anybody who argues that they ought to be able to bring up any amendments they want when it is hurting the Senate, is not shooting straight. The fact is, they can bring up any amendments they want. They just have to get the votes to win. Maybe they will postcloture. I don't know.

But in all honesty, we all know the game. It is either we are going to get cloture and people are going to live up to their commitment or not, and bipartisanship is even hurt more than it has been up until now. It has been in shambles as far as I can see almost all year long. This has been one of the worst years in my Senate career because of the lack of partisanship, the lack of comity that normally exists in this body in the desire to make everything political and the effectiveness of making everything political as well.

This is one bill that does not deserve that kind of unfair treatment, especially since we compromised last year and took amendments we would not have taken and changed the bill we would not have changed, all for the purpose of getting enough votes to vote for cloture. And now we are here again this year--another year, 6 years in a row--whereby the same people who said they were for this bill and talked us into all these amendments on the basis that they would vote for cloture may not. I personally hope they will. If they will, it will do more for comity in this body, more for bipartisanship than we have seen all year. It would be a ray of hope to everybody in this body that maybe there is a chance of us getting together on things that are important, the things that are right, things that we promised, things that will benefit the business community, things that will correct the ills which literally have been wrecking this institution and hurting our country immeasurably and will put the screws to these jurisdictions, these magnet jurisdictions, that do not seem to care about the law or anything else.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, first of all, let me thank both of my colleagues from Nevada and Oklahoma as well. Their remarks were very moving today. In the midst of all these other matters we debate and discuss--matters we think are of such great and global and national importance--I don't think anything we have listened to has been as important as the comments that have been made by our good friend and colleague from Oregon, Gordon Smith, and my good friends and colleagues, Harry Reid and Don Nickles. I was aware of the circumstance of my friend from Nevada. I was not aware of the circumstance of my friend from Oklahoma. I appreciate both of them adding their voices today to this discussion. Particularly, though, I think we all feel a special bond with Senator Smith and what he and his lovely wife Sharon have gone through. I commend him for his courage and determination to share his story with us and the country today.

Time does heal wounds. I suspect my friend from Nevada and friend from Oklahoma still feel tremendous pain, and I suppose that time does remove some of the bitterness. But we know that our friend from Oregon lost his son only a matter of months ago, and we know the fact that he came to me, to Mike DeWine and Senator Reed, to others, asking with great determination if there was a way to clear the legislation before us this year. I am so glad that he came to us. I will forever remember the hour or so we spent--not many weeks ago--talking about this legislation in my office and trying to find a way to clear it. Gordon, it is because of you that we are here today.

I commend the majority leader and the Democratic leader and others for insisting that we find some time here to allow this legislation to be considered and, I believe, adopted unanimously by our colleagues. I know the other body is considering legislation as well.

If I could, I would like to spend a couple of minutes speaking about this important issue, and I hope this time maybe there are people listening. I know occasionally people follow C-SPAN. There are probably times when they wonder why they are watching us at all, but maybe today, as a result of our conversation and the tremendous remarks by our colleagues who have talked about this issue in very personal terms, in addition to the underlying legislation, there will be people listening whose lives might be transformed. My admiration for the three of our colleagues who have spoken today, particularly our colleague from Oregon, is unlimited. He has done a great service, if nothing else, by sharing his story with America. That has great value.

There are people listening to this who I know full well are going through similar circumstances and wondering how to cope, or a child out there who may be wondering whether anyone can pay any attention to his or her needs, or trying to find a place he or she can go to try and resolve these conflicts. I think this discussion is a worthy one for this historic Chamber to be engaged in.

Adolescent years are the most difficult in many ways. We spend a lot of time talking about early childhood development, and rightfully so. Those are formative years in a child's life. There is much more we could do to try and assist parents and young children beginning the journey of life to get it right from the beginning. And we spend a great deal of time talking about higher education, talking about the cost and getting jobs and the like. Certainly that has great value as well. However, we don't spend enough time talking about those adolescent years, those middle years from age six to 24. I can think of only a few instances where we have actually had hearings and talked about the problems of adolescents, those tremendously changing years that can be so terribly complex for an individual of that age.

I hope that as a result this discussion, the legislation we are introducing will have some ability, some impact, maybe, in focusing our attention on those questions. Let me go back and, first of all, again thank my colleague Senator Mike DeWine, with whom I have worked on this issue, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who has done a tremendous job as well on this legislation, and my colleague Richard Durbin of Illinois, who wants to be added as a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor to this legislation.

As has been pointed out by our friend from Oregon, suicide among our Nation's young people is an acute crisis that knows no socioeconomic boundaries. My State of Connecticut, as well as all other states in the nation, suffer from this tragedy. In fact, my hometown of East Haddam, Connecticut--a small rural community of 8,000 people--has not been immune.

In 2001, I chaired the first Congressional hearing on youth suicide, and I was alarmed at the disturbing statistics that were read at that hearing. Well, those statistics have not changed and they are worth repeating again today. According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost 3,000 young people-- 10 percent of all suicides--take their lives in the United States every year. It is the third overall cause of death between the ages of 10 and 24. Young people under the age of 25 account for 15 percent of all suicides completed. In fact, more children and young adults die from their own hand than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke, and chronic lung disease combined.

Equally alarming are the numbers of young people who consider taking or attempt to take their own lives. Again, recent CDC figures estimate almost 3 million high school students or 20 percent of young adults between the ages of 15 to 19 consider suicide each year, and over 2 million children and young adults actually attempt suicide. Simply put, these figures are totally unacceptable and of a crisis proportion.

Sadly, we rarely find these facts disseminated widely among public audiences. We rarely read them in newspapers or hear them on television. Individual cases, yes, but not the national numbers.

We know youth suicide is integrally linked to mental health issues such as depression and substance abuse. Yet we also know all too well that both youth suicide and children's mental health continue to carry an unfortunate stigma, a stigma that all too often keeps these crucial issues unspoken and discourages children and young adults from seeking the help they so desperately need.

We have a societal obligation to break through this stigma attached to youth suicide and children's mental health. Again, the comments of our colleagues this afternoon have taken a major step in that direction. When people in public life can address these issues in public forums and talk about them in personal terms, then they help us break down the barriers and stigmas that exist. That is why I feel so strongly about the willingness of our colleagues today, particularly Senator Smith, to share their personal thoughts with us.

We also have a societal obligation to instill in our young people a sense of value, of self-worth and resilience. All too often children and young adults considering suicide lose sight of themselves, their talents, their potential in life, and all too often they lose sight of the love their families, friends, and communities have for them, as our friend from Oregon so eloquently described.

I am pleased our Nation has already taken positive steps toward better understanding the tragedy of youth suicide and its emotional and behavioral risk factors. Several recent reports like the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention, and the Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent Suicide have made youth suicide a top national public and mental health priority.

Today hundreds of community-based programs across the country offer a variety of early intervention and prevention services to thousands of children and young adults--services that include comprehensive screening, assessment, and individualized counseling. Every State and many tribal nations have begun developing or already have implemented a youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategy that coordinates appropriate services in schools, juvenile justice systems, foster care systems, mental health programs, substance abuse programs, and other youth-oriented settings.

Furthermore, the Federal Government has stepped up in its role in both supporting these community-based activities and conducting relevant research and data collection. Several mental health and public health agencies have shown a great interest in youth suicide, including the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health. However, despite these important gains, we still face significant challenges.

Today a large number of States, localities, tribes, and service providers are finding themselves with unprecedented budget deficits, making the establishment of new services and the retention of existing services increasingly more difficult.

Furthermore, youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies are often underfunded or understaffed to be properly effective. And while a number of Federal agencies have supported youth suicide activities, there have been no comprehensive interagency strategies implemented to share data, disseminate research, or evaluate the efficacy of youth suicide early intervention and prevention programs.

Today I am introducing bipartisan legislation with my colleagues Senators Mike DeWine, Jack Reed, Gordon Smith, Harry Reid, and Dick Durbin, named in memory of Garrett Lee Smith. This legislation further supports the good work being done at the community level, the State level, and the Federal level with regard to youth suicide, early intervention and prevention in four principal ways.

First, it establishes new grant initiatives for the further development and expansion of youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies and the community-based services they seek to coordinate.

Second, it authorizes a dedicated technical assistance center to assist States, localities, tribes, and community service providers with planning, implementation, and evaluation of these strategies and services.

Third, it establishes a new grant initiative to enhance and improve early intervention and prevention services specifically designed for college-age students.

And last, it creates a new interagency collaboration to focus on policy development and the dissemination of data specifically pertaining to youth suicide. I continue to believe that funding for concrete, comprehensive, and effective remedies for the epidemic of youth suicide cannot be done by lawmakers on Capitol Hill alone. They must also come from individuals, such as doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, nurses, teachers, advocates, clergymen, survivors, and affected families who are dedicated to this issue or spend each day with children and young adults who suffer from illnesses related to youth suicide.

I believe we have made an important first step with this legislation today. That step has been implemented by the comments of my colleagues on the floor of the Senate. However, I also know that our work is not done. I sincerely hope that as a society we can continue to work collectively both to understand better the tragedy of this incredible problem of youth suicide and to develop innovative and effective and public mental health initiatives that reach every child and young adult in this great Nation of ours, compassionate initiatives to give them encouragement, hope, and love, and most important, life.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I was going to ask my colleague to yield, but he has spoken eloquently enough. I was

just going to once again thank him and Nancy, his lovely spouse, as well, who have been real champions on this issue for as long as I have been here, almost a quarter of a century.

I was thinking of the number of times, in my own public service of now almost 30 years, that I have been with audiences--50 people, 100 people, 200 people--talking about this subject matter. I oftentimes will turn to the audience and say to the audience: I want any of you here who have not been affected by this issue to raise your hand. If there is someone in the audience out here who has not had a father or a mother or a sister or a best friend or a cousin who has been affected by one form of mental illness or another, just raise your hand. I am curious to know if there is anybody here who has not been touched by this issue. I have never, in my 30 years of public service, in my home State of Connecticut, when I have ever raised this issue, ever had anybody raise their hand--in 30 years. Everyone--every single American--has been touched by this issue.

You would think, in this kind of environment, when we all understand this issue--and we have gone through one of the most moving moments of my 24 years in the Senate today, listening to the eloquent comments of my colleagues from Oregon and Nevada and Oklahoma speaking about their own personal experiences--you might think at a moment like this we would be able to come together to not only deal with the legislation that we have authored together to deal specifically with teenage suicide and related issues, but we might also find some time, right now, in the midst of this, to bring up and vote on a bill that enjoys overwhelming support in this body.

It would be one thing if the Senator from New Mexico and others who have joined him in this matter were in a minority, but there is a majority of us who believe exactly as does the Senator from New Mexico, that it is the 21st century--we are not in the 17th, 18th, 19th, or even 20th century--and we are still treating this issue as if somehow it belongs in the recesses and shadows and darkness of some corner, despite the fact that almost every single one of our fellow citizens understands this issue because they have confronted it very directly in their own homes and in their own neighborhoods. Yet we can't seem to find, as the Senator from Nevada has suggested, the 15, 20, 30 minutes or an hour to give us a chance to vote. Maybe people will want to vote against it. If they do, that is their business. But I believe there is a majority of us who would like to see this get done.

So I want to say to my friend from New Mexico, who I have worked with on this issue--and I appreciate our colleague from Nevada raising the name of Paul Wellstone, who was a great champion of this issue as well during his service in the Senate--that I don't know when this is going to happen--I hope sooner rather than later--but I want my friend from New Mexico to know: Don't you ever doubt for a single second this is not going to get done. It may not be today and it may not be tomorrow or next week, but I promise you that before long--hopefully before this session ends, if not sooner--we are going to get this legislation passed, and we are going to give the President an opportunity to sign it into law to begin to make a difference for the people in this country. So then I can not only ask the question to those audiences in my own State, ``Is there anyone who has not been affected by this?'' but I can ask, ``Is there anybody who cannot get help?'' because we have insisted the insurance companies and others start treating this condition as if it were any other ailment people can get coverage for and their families get protection.

Once again, I thank my friend from Oregon, and I thank his lovely wife Sharon and their family for their courage and their willingness to share with the country their feelings.

There have been many moments of pride when you watch a piece of legislation become law. There are very few that will equal the moment we are going to have this evening. My hope is that we will adopt this legislation named after Garrett.

Mr. President, I might add, I think Senator Kennedy as well wants to be added as a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I do not know if there is any further discussion on this subject matter. If not, I want to move back to the subject matter of the bill.

I see my colleague from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I am glad to yield to my colleague.

I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, I want to let my colleagues know what I am going to do at the end of these remarks. So that there will be no surprises, I am going to ask unanimous consent that the anticipated vote on cloture that is going to occur later today or tomorrow morning be vitiated indefinitely. I am not making that motion yet, but I am going to make the motion. I want to give them notice so they can find someone here who may want to object. I am going to make the motion because my view is that we have worked long and hard on getting this class action reform bill done. This bill is not perfect, but it is a reasonable bipartisan compromise that will reform the nation's class action system.

Having worked on this legislation last fall with a number of my colleagues, we now find ourselves in the middle of July dealing with this issue. I still have never received an adequate explanation of why this matter was not brought to the floor in January, February, March, April, or any point earlier. Why we waited until as late as we have to bring up an issue that has been as important as this makes little sense.

But my plea to the leadership, particularly the majority leader, is to not insist upon this cloture vote right now. Instead, I would like to give the leadership some ample time over the weekend to see if they can't fashion a compromise which would allow for the consideration of a number of amendments, both relevant and nonrelevant, as is the normal course of Senate business. Then we would come to a final vote and go to conference on the class action reform act.

I thought the decision to invoke cloture was one that was made last evening out of frustration because we were not getting very far with the class action reform bill. We began Tuesday night, but there were no votes that evening. On Wednesday morning, before any amendments were offered at all, the majority leader filled the amendment tree, precluding any amendments from being offered without getting his approval. Then Wednesday night, the decision was made to file cloture.

I am looking at a piece of correspondence dated July 6, the day before the decision to invoke cloture, from the National Association of Manufacturers. In his letter to all 100 Senators--dated July 6, not July 7--he notes a cloture vote will occur and that it is going to be considered a vote that will be scored on their annual legislative report card.

I ask unanimous consent to print the letter in the Record.

My point is, I would have thought this letter might have been dated on July 7, not the day before the decision to invoke cloture. It raises some suspicion that maybe the intention was all along to file cloture and not to give us a chance to go through the normal processes of debate and amendments.

Apparently the fix was in even before we started, which indicates to this Senator that the intention was never to get to this bill. There were numerous meetings over the last several. One of the things we talked about was the importance of setting aside an adequate amount of time for the full consideration of this bill.

The Democratic leader offered a proposal of limiting several nongermane amendments and a limited number of relevant amendments. The majority leader countered and offered to have even fewer nongermane amendments and an unlimited amount of germane or relevant amendments. I was mystified by that offer because had it been accepted, we could have spent weeks on this bill without ever invoking cloture if we had had hundreds of amendments filed that were germane to the underlying bill.

I am convinced there is still a formulation of germane/nongermane amendments that would allow us to consider those in a relatively expedited fashion and then get to final passage of the class action reform bill. My plea will be at the appropriate time that we vitiate the cloture vote, let the leaders over the weekend see if they can't come up with some formulation on amendments, and then next week or so to return to the legislation.

It is a great travesty that we are going to abandon this bill many of us have worked long and hard on because a small minority are unhappy over the possibility that we might consider as amendments several proposals that enjoy broad support in this institution. I realize that can be difficult. But nonetheless, it seems to me you don't shut down the underlying bill entirely because there are some proposals that may be offered that are unappealing to only a handful. Yet that is the situation in which we find ourselves.

For those who have worked on this, we are about to miss this opportunity, maybe not only for this Congress but for many years to come. That can happen. I have been around here long enough to know if you don't strike when the iron is hot, you may lose the opportunity for a long time down the road.

I appeal to the majority leader, who filed the cloture petition last evening, to vitiate that cloture motion. Give himself, the Democratic leader, and others who are interested a chance over the next several days to see if they can't come up with a formulation that will allow for the consideration of several amendments under time agreements. That ought to be the way we proceed, rather than abandoning this effort.

I am told the next two issues to be brought up--and the minority whip can correct me if I am wrong--are a constitutional amendment on gay marriage and a flag-burning constitutional amendment, neither of which have any chance of passage in this body. I don't believe anyone agrees there is any chance of them becoming the law of the land. Yet we are going to shove class action reform, based on the decision of the majority leader, off the table, maybe permanently, in order to consider two matters that have no chance of being adopted whatsoever.

If that is in fact the situation, then those who have been such strong supporters of this proposal outside of this Chamber ought to understand what the game is. As I have often said, I was born at night, but not last night. I think I understand what is going on here. Maybe all this time was only a game to bring the issue up with the full knowledge that once you close the opportunity for further amendments, you are then guaranteeing the outcome we are about to have.

I am terribly disappointed, after a lot of time being spent on this effort, that we have come to this particular moment. We just listened to the eloquent comments of our colleague from Oregon on legislation that will be adopted later this evening or next week dealing with teenage suicide. We have listened to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, who has worked for 15 years on trying to achieve parity in the provisions providing coverage for people with mental illnesses. There is a significant majority of us in this body who believe that legislation ought to be adopted and then sent to the House for their consideration. They may reject it. It may not be adopted in conference, but we owe those who have fought long and hard a chance to vote on these measures. Certainly the American public might be more impressed with the Senate if we were to deal with the issue of mental health rather than with the issue of gay marriage or flag burning.

Literally thousands of cases, I am told, by people out there are being filed in State courts when they belong in Federal courts. I am a strong supporter of that effort. Are people here to tell me the flag- burning amendment and a gay marriage constitutional amendment are more important than dealing with reforming the class action system or the issue of mental health parity? I hate to see what the outcome would be if I polled the American public what they felt about the priorities of the Senate so close to the election.

What issues would America like to see us address? We have the issue of the minimum wage. Senator Craig of Idaho has an issue dealing with immigration and joblessness which enjoys the cosponsorship of three- quarters of the Members of this body and the support of the White House. We can't get it to the floor of the Senate. We have the provisions offered by our colleagues from Hawaii who are seeking some support for legislation that is critically important to their State. I mentioned the minimum wage. I mentioned mental health parity. These are only some of the issues.

On the question of importation of drugs, we are constantly being told that matter is going to come to the Senate floor for debate. Yet we are finding all of these issues being scuttled, including class action reform, to the sidelines so we can deal with a couple of issues that have limited support in this Chamber and I think marginal support if people thought about them out across the country.

So I am disappointed by the priorities here. I realize the majority has the right to set the agenda; it is their business to set the agenda. The majority party controls this Chamber, they control the other body, and they control the White House. They set the agenda. They have decided that the agenda--America's agenda--ought not to be class action reform, ought not to be mental health parity, ought not to be the minimum wage, ought not to be immigration reforms, which the Latino and Hispanic community and agribusinesses care about so much, and ought not to be the legislation offered by my colleague from Hawaii. Instead, it ought to be gay marriage and flag burning, neither of which have any chance of being adopted by this body.

My colleagues know full well constitutional amendments require supermajorities in order to leave here for consideration by the various States.

I see the presence of a colleague on the other side. I wanted to make sure someone was here before I make a unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to invoke cloture, scheduled for tomorrow morning, be vitiated indefinitely, and that the reason for doing it is to give the leadership an opportunity to try to formulate a structure that will allow for the consideration of the class action reform bill in some manner that we can all endorse, support, and allow us to get to that issue. I make that request.

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

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

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

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my good friend from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, we are once again offering an amendment which deals with the underlying issue of this debate, and that is the adequacy of our resources to the homeland security effort.

In recent days we have heard the Vice President of the United States suggesting that we ought not enter the mindset of a pre-9/11. I couldn't agree more. It is a dangerous thing for this country to forget what our Nation went through 3 years ago come Monday. Certainly, what we are suggesting with this amendment we are offering--Senator Stabenow, myself, and Senator Kennedy--is to put some real resources, a real effort behind the homeland security effort.

We have put this amendment together not based on our conclusions individually of what ought to be a part of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Rather, we draw upon the tremendous work done by a former colleague of ours, Senator Warren Rudman, and his report that was produced by experts in conjunction with the Council on Foreign Relations. A significant amount of time was spent to assess the adequacy of our first responders and whether we have in place across this country 3 years after the brutal attacks of 9/11 the resources, the personnel, the equipment, and the training necessary to provide the protections this country needs if, Lord forbid, we are attacked again by terrorists.

That report concludes that we are woefully inadequate to meet those challenges with which we are confronted. It lays out in detail suggestions as to what needs to be done in

order to make us better prepared to respond to those situations. So we are offering this amendment in the same spirit in which our colleague from West Virginia offered his amendment. It is out of a deep concern we are not doing enough to protect our Nation from the risk of a terrorist attack.

Last June, former Senator Warren Rudman, with a very distinguished panel of experts, produced a report sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. Their report concluded that we must spend at least $98 billion over the next 5 years in order to provide a reasonable degree of security here at home.

The Council on Foreign Relations report was not just another study thrown together over a few days; it was authored by a friend and former colleague from New Hampshire, Warren Rudman. He assembled a very distinguished group of Americans to serve on a task force which wrote the July 2003 report. The task force members included Richard Clarke, a former counterterrorism adviser for three Presidents. It also included Admiral William Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Reagan; George Shultz, President Reagan's Secretary of State; Harold Varmus, former Director of the National Institutes of Health under President Clinton; William Webster, who served both as the Director of the CIA and the FBI in the 1980s and 1990s, among many others.

Regrettably, 1 year later, the urgent recommendations of this very distinguished panel--a very comprehensive study--have been almost totally ignored by the leadership of the Congress and the executive branch. According to the Rudman report:

Estimated combined federal, state and local expenditures .

. . would need to be as much as tripled over the next five

years to address the unmanned need. Covering this funding

shortfall using federal funds alone would require a five-fold

increase from the current levels.

So, depending upon the level of State and local funding available, the Federal Government should be committing between $15 and $25 billion per year according to the Council on Foreign Relations. If $15 billion to $25 billion a year is what it takes to get the job done, that is what we ought to be providing. Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate only commits about $3.4 billion a year, which is a fifth of what is really needed to support our first responders.

The amendment Senator Stabenow and I are offering would commit a full $20 billion necessary in fiscal year 2005 and would set us on the path toward meeting the Council on Foreign Relations' recommendations for first responder investments over the next 5 years. I realize $20 billion a year is a lot of money. I would like to put that number into context, if I may.

First, I don't believe that any of my colleagues who served with Warren Rudman or know Warren Rudman would call him free spending. In fact, when one hears the words ``deficit hawk,'' you often think immediately of Warren Rudman. He led the Concord Coalition in the mid 1990s with another friend and former colleague, the late Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts. He fought tirelessly for deficit reduction and balanced budgets while serving in the Senate. He also lent his name to the landmark 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, of which I was honored to be a cosponsor at the time. So when Warren Rudman says we need to be spending $20 billion a year for our Nation's first responders, I think we need to take his advise very seriously.

When George Shultz, when Mr. Webster, when Admiral Crowe and others make these recommendations, we are not talking about people who do not know what they are talking about. We are talking about some of the most serious public servants of the last two or three decades, people who have taken a serious look at our needs, a serious look at the threats facing us, in a bipartisan way, and have urged this Congress to do a better job in seeing to it that the American public is protected from the dangers of a terrorist attack by insisting that our first responders receive the necessary tools they ought to have in order to respond.

We should also keep in mind that the current Department of Defense budget is about $400 billion per year--that is more than a billion a day we are investing on our military security. If we would allocate an additional $20 billion a year for first responders, as the Rudman report recommends, our amendment would provide only 5 percent of the total defense budget. Isn't 5 percent of that budget worth it in order to provide more protection to the American citizens at home?

By the way, that $400 million does not necessarily include the money we are spending in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq alone is $200 billion we have already spent in that particular conflict.

We are also spending billions of dollars, as I mentioned, to sustain our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe that $20 billion a year is a good investment to ensure our urgent homeland security needs are going to be met. Again, focusing $20 billion on domestic security would represent only a fraction of 1 year's military budget. If we committed the entire amount identified in the Warren Rudman report--$98 billion-- it would only be 90 days' worth of military spending in any given year.

If we as a nation can find the resources we need to ensure our military security, and I believe we should, then we must make a similar commitment to find the resources we need to ensure that the domestic defenders of our Nation are also equipped to provide domestic security. We do not send our military personnel into battle without the equipment they need to do their jobs, and we should not send our law enforcement personnel, our firefighters, our emergency medical technicians, out into a field without equipping them with what they need. We do not send our military into battle without the training to succeed. We should not send our domestic defenders into the field without proper training, either. We do not send our military to battle without sufficient human resources, and we should not send our firefighters into dangerous situations without the backup they need in order to ensure their safety.

In the 3 years since September 11, we have made progress. But we also know categorically that we are not doing enough and we need to do more. If the choice is between tax cuts that we cannot afford and securing the public against the now known threats of terrorism, I believe the choice is simple. We must act responsibly to protect the public we serve. To not do so and then be attacked, then to not look back and wonder why we did not take the necessary steps, would be an indictment against this Congress and the people who are unwilling to step up and provide the resources we need at the local and State level.

September 11 was one of the darkest days in our history. We all know that. We have heard about it. We all feel it very painfully. The simultaneous attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as well as the battle in the airspace over Pennsylvania was the deadliest foreign attack ever launched against the citizenry of this great country of ours.

September 11 drew our attention to a fact that experts had known for years--namely, that the United States is vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Certainly we had experienced acts of terrorism before. Indeed, the World Trade Center itself had been attacked by terrorists in 1993. We had experienced the horrific attacks in Oklahoma City. We knew terrorism was possible anywhere, even in our schools. But it took the attacks of September 11 to focus our attention on the magnitude of the dangers we face and the people we are up against and what they are willing to do in order to do great damage to our country.

Since September 11, the Federal Government has taken steps to improve our Nation's security. I applaud that. The fact we are even debating the Homeland Security appropriations bill is a reflection of the Federal Government's efforts to meet the challenges posed by the threats of terrorism. Yet there is still more that we must do. We can heed the recommendations of the Rudman report, which tells us we have not done nearly enough to protect the public we serve. That would be a major step in the right direction. It tells us that despite the risks this Nation faces, despite the real and present dangers, even the real likelihood of future terrorist attacks, that we are failing to take the steps necessary to protect the American people.

The Rudman report also tells us that the Federal Government has not made a sufficient commitment to help ensure that our first responders-- our firefighters, our police, and our emergency medical personnel--have the training, the equipment, and staffing levels they need to effectively respond to what seemed unthinkable but that we now know can happen anywhere at any time.

After talking to State and local emergency management professionals-- fire chiefs, police chiefs, the authors of the Rudman report--I have concluded we need to do much more than we have been doing. Local authorities asking for Federal assistance are told: We are sorry, but this is the best the Federal Government can do right now. Is this really the best we can do? I don't think so. I think we can do better.

In addition, Vice President Cheney has been attacking the Democratic candidate on homeland security and warning about the risks of returning to a pre-September 11 mindset. I am almost quoting him. But who is really in a pre-September 11 mindset? This homeland security has not even begun to reflect the post-September risks that have been clearly, painstakingly detailed by our former colleague, Warren Rudman, and the distinguished panel that compiled this report.

Three years ago, President Bush asked for and Congress agreed to large tax cuts. The rationale at the time was we had a huge surplus and could afford a tax cut. However, this year things have changed and record surpluses have become record deficits, staggering deficits, the largest in our Nation's history on an annual basis, and a national debt that is mounting. By the end of this fiscal year, the total Federal deficit will be nearly $422 billion. That will be the largest deficit in our Nation's history.

This deficit is being racked up at a time when we have to address clear and immediate threats that are before us. However, instead of marshaling our resources in a comprehensive, responsible way, the administration did something that, in my view, will be recorded in history as irresponsible. It committed even more resources for the purpose of giving more tax benefits to the most affluent of our citizens.

That was the choice they made--a clear choice to give tax benefits to the privileged few rather than taking the steps to make the commitment to protect all of us. Our enormous budget deficit has been coupled with a huge security deficit. There is now an enormous gap between what we are committing to homeland security and what we should be providing to State and local first responders.

We have an opportunity with this amendment to set our priorities straight. We can, and we should, reestablish that the priority of this Nation is to protect all Americans and not to lavish scarce public resources on the privileged few.

The amendment Senator Stabenow and I are offering would adhere to the recommendations of the task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and establish a more responsible and realistic baseline for supporting our first responders--our firefighters, our police, and our emergency medical personnel.

To those who say we cannot afford to commit the resources to protect our people, I ask: Can we really afford not to do so? It seems to me if we can afford trillions of dollars in tax cuts that benefit the most affluent, then we ought to be able to afford $20 billion this year, next year, and the 3 years following to ensure, or to do a better job of ensuring, our security.

According to a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office released last month, the tax cuts approved in the last 3 years exacerbate income inequality by boosting the after-tax income of high- income households far more than that of middle- or low-income households. Based on the Congressional Budget Office data, the top 1 percent of households whose annual incomes average $1.2 million a year will receive an average tax cut of approximately $40,000 in the year 2004. This tax break is more than 40 times--40 times!--the average tax break for those in the middle fifth of income distribution.

With the amendment we are offering today, millionaires are going to be asked to take a smaller tax cut than they are already receiving under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. With our amendment, these individuals would still be able to benefit from significant tax cuts. But by simply reducing the 2003 tax breaks for those earning in excess of $1 million a year--one-tenth of 1 percent of all taxpayers; which is what our amendment does--we would be able to live up to our commitment, our obligation, to our Nation's first responders and to the people of this country by providing them with the resources to see to it they can respond if, God forbid, we are confronted with another terrorist attack.

So we have an offset. I suspect it will be challenged as a violation of the Budget Act. But here we are paying for an amendment by reducing the tax cut for the most affluent, to see to it that the general public can have the kind of protections they need, in order to see to it that we are protected against terrorist attacks that may come at a future date.

With that, Madam President, I will yield to my colleague from Michigan, who is a cosponsor of this amendment. And she was there the last time we offered this amendment. She is a great advocate of these efforts to improve our homeland security picture. I am honored to join with her in this effort once again this year.

I yield to my colleague from Michigan.

Madam President, I say to the chairman, we will be happy to try to work that out. I don't know if other colleagues want to be heard. I will find out. If not, I will certainly not oppose the idea of having a vote. We will make a motion to waive if the point of order is raised. We will work that out.

If I can, let me, first of all, say that the chairman of the subcommittee has been a wonderful friend of mine. I have great respect for him. He has a thankless job, in many ways, in trying to deal with budget constraints. I am not sure that history is going to judge us well if, in fact, we are confronted with one of these dreadful attacks and the argument is we were prohibited because the Budget Act would not allow us to respond. We had an emergency supplemental adopted to deal with the situation in Iraq. Certainly, this Chamber and the other responded to it. The American public responded to it.

Certainly, nothing could be more important. The first and most significant obligation that all of us at a Federal level assume when we take the oath of office is to protect the citizenry of this country. Nothing is more fundamental to our jobs. We all understand that and respect it. This is not a request we are making for some social spending or education or health, and I argue that there is a good case to be made for those. We are talking about fulfilling the most basic obligation we have; that is, to protect and defend the people of this country. We have been given more than adequate warnings of what those who would do us great harm intend to do given the opportunity.

My colleague from Michigan rightfully points out the tragedy that occurred halfway around the globe in Russia only a few days ago. We are dealing with similar people. You need only look at your local newspaper and reports of how hostages--innocents doing humanitarian work in Iraq--are being treated by terrorists who apprehend them and threaten their lives. Let there be no doubt of the intentions of those who would do us great harm.

To argue that because there is restraint in the Budget Act that prohibits us from coming up with an offset--and again, I know it takes a little work to get it done, but I argue strenuously that history will look back and say: Why didn't you provide these resources when we knew we needed them. We are not making this up out of whole

cloth. It is not as if the Senator from Michigan and I sat around and decided what ought to be done. We are relying on a very significant group of people who made some very serious recommendations.

Once again, I share with my colleagues the members of this panel. These are very distinguished people. This report was done a year ago, in July of 2003. It is not ancient history.

I mentioned already, of course, the chairman of this task force, Warren Rudman, our former colleague, the author of the Gramm-Rudman- Hollings deficit reduction package, a fiscal hawk during his tenure in the Senate, certainly not one who is known as a profligate spender.

I already mentioned Admiral Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Margaret Hamburg, vice president for Biological Weapons at the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Before coming to NTI, she was Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Joshua Lederberg, a Nobel laureate, and who currently serves as president emeritus and Sackler Foundation Scholar, Rockefeller University.

Donald Marron, chairman of UBS America, as well as Light-Year Capital. Previously, he served as chairman and chief executive officer of Paine Webber. Certainly no wild spender when we start talking about people who looked at these issues.

I believe I mentioned Norm Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

George Shultz, former Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Labor, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, who is certainly not a wild spender, and who sat and unanimously adopted the recommendations my colleague from Michigan and I are suggesting.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. Prior to her appointment at Princeton, she was the J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign and Comparative Law at Harvard Law School.

Harold Varmus, president and chief executive officer of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Previously, he served as the Director of the National Institutes of Health.

John Vessey has served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army.

I mentioned Bill Webster as well. He served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, as well as the Director of the FBI.

Steven Weinberg is director of the Theory Group of the University of Texas. He is a Nobel laureate in physics and a recipient of the National Medal of Science.

The list goes on. These are highly competent people who sat down under the leadership of Warren Rudman and said this is what we think we need to do. The Senator from Michigan and I know it is a lot of money. It is a lot of money--$20 billion a year over the next 5 years, an additional $15 billion, included with what is in this budget. But if something happens tomorrow, next week, next month, and we are not prepared to respond to it, people will ask: What did you do? You have been given an opportunity to get ready, to be responsible, to take the necessary steps so we would be prepared to respond. And we were told we could not because of the Budget Act.

Imagine if we offered this amendment without offset. We would be accused of spending money without coming up with resources to offset the obligation. Is it too much to say to one-tenth of 1 percent of our population, not to eliminate your tax cut, but reduce it for 1 year in order to pay for this? That is the choice.

We are all confronted with difficult choices. I do not think this one is terribly difficult, and I suspect if you asked that one-tenth of 1 percent of the most affluent of our citizenry whether they are willing to give up a tax cut for 1 year in order to enhance the homeland security of this Republic, I suspect an overwhelming majority of them would say: Do it; do it.

These are patriots. These are people who understand difficult choices need to be made. We are going to be given the chance in the next few minutes to waive the Budget Act to make it possible for us to come up with the resources to do this. This is the choice with which we are going to be confronted, and I do not think history is going to accept the argument that the Budget Act somehow could not be waived because we could not come up with the resources to do it, because somehow a regulation or some provision of law made it difficult for us to do so.

I think that answer is pathetic. It is inadequate. It is not going to be accepted by history or the American public. Yet that is the choice I think we ought to be making today.

Senator Byrd, our colleague from West Virginia, has offered a modest increase. My colleague from Michigan and I are offering something that is larger. We know that. It may be asking a lot, but I think to do anything less is to place our Nation at risk.

We are once again asking our colleagues to put aside the technical arguments that could be raised and do what is right for our country. Let's waive the Budget Act. There is a resource to offset this cost. We need not add to the deficit of the country to do what needs to be done. The people who made these recommendations are distinguished Americans. They come from all political walks of life, all parties. They are involved in science, national security, and the domestic security of our Republic. They have come to the conclusion that this is what we ought to do. We ought to listen to them, and we ought to respond to them by adopting this amendment and waiving the point of order when it is made.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, be also added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Madam President, I am prepared to go into a quorum call at this point to chat with our friend from Mississippi as to how he wants to proceed on points of order and waivers. I would also like to at least give the respective leaders an opportunity to inquire as to whether any Members would like to be heard on the amendment before we end the time. I assume it will not be much and I would be happy to agree on a time certain. I would be happy to make it around the time for the vote on the Byrd amendment to accommodate Members' interests.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.