Floor Statements

I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont.

Mr. President, the remarks I am about to make can very well be written under the title ``Gathering Storm Clouds Over North Korea.'' Weather forecasters have a name for one of their worst nightmares of violent atmospheric disturbance, triggered by an unusual convergence of weather systems. They call it the ``perfect storm.''

As the United States continues to be preoccupied with quelling the postwar chaos in Iraq, I worry that the elements of a perfect storm, capable of wreaking devastating damage to international stability, are brewing elsewhere in the world. The forces at play are centered on the escalating nuclear threat from North Korea, but they also include the emergence of Iran as a nuclear contender, the violence and desperate humanitarian situation in Liberia, the near forgotten but continuing war in Afghanistan, and the unrelenting threat of international terrorism.

Just a few days ago, the Department of Homeland Security issued a chilling alert that al-Qaida operatives may be plotting suicide missions to hijack commercial aircraft in the coming weeks, possibly in the United States--a very sobering thought indeed.

Weather forecasters can do little more than watch a storm unfold. They cannot quiet the winds, as Jesus did on the Sea of Galilee, or calm the seas. We require more from the President of the United States when it comes to international crises. The President cannot afford merely to plot the course of the gathering storms over North Korea, Iran, Liberia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The President needs to turn his attention to these countries and work with the international community to defuse the emerging crises. The challenge is formidable and there are no easy answers. But the price of inaction could be ruinous.

Of all the looming international threats, North Korea is clearly the

most worrisome. As recently as July 14, former Defense Secretary and Korean specialist, Willian Perry, warned that the United States and North Korea are drifting toward war, possibly as early as this year. In an interview published in the Washington Post, Dr. Perry said:

The nuclear program now underway in North Korea poses an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities.

Surely, such a stark warning from an official so deeply steeped in the political culture of North Korea should be a wake-up call to the President. Yet, to date, the administration has steadfastly refused to engage in direct talks with North Korea, or even to characterize the threat of North Korea's nuclear weapons program as a crisis. Instead, the President and his advisers have continued to hurl invectives at Kim Jong Il, while shrugging off increasingly alarming reports that North Korea is stepping up its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Since last October, when North Korea revealed that it planned to reprocess plutonium fuel rods into fissile material that could be used in nuclear weapons, the President and his advisers have consistently downplayed the nuclear threat from North Korea, while hyping the nuclear threat from Iraq.

Yet while we have strong evidence that North Korea is working feverishly to accelerate its nuclear program, we still have not found a shread--not a shread--of evidence that Saddam Hussein's efforts to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear weapons program were anything more than bluster and hyperbole.

It is time--if it is not already too late--to drop the false bravado of indifference to the threat from North Korea and engage in face-to- face negotiations with the North Koreans. Multilateral negotiations are fine--preferable even--but they are unlikely to be productive unless the United States takes the lead. We cannot wait for the Chinese or the Japanese or the South Koreans to pave the way. We cannot brush off the nuclear threat posed by North Korea as just an annoying irritant. There is a real threat. Now there is a real threat to the United States, and the United States must act fast to naturalize it.

The news on Thursday, July 31, that North Korea has expressed a willingness to engage in six-sided talks, with the participation of Russia in addition to the other players, offers a glimmer of opportunity that the United States should seize before North Korea changes its mind. As difficult as it is to predict or understand the motivations of Kim Jong Il, one thing is certain: No progress can be made in unraveling the nuclear tangle on the Korean peninsula until the parties involved start talking to each other.

Not only must the President come to terms with the gravity of the situation in North Korea but the President must also understand that this is not a one-man show, and that this is not the type of discussion that can be sealed with a simple handshake. You don't look into the eyes here and determine what is in the depth of the soul.

Under the Constitution, the Senate has a unique and important role to play in helping to frame the contours and the content of international treaties. Any agreement negotiated between the United States and Korea will have far-reaching implications for the national security of the United States and, as such, should be subject to the treaty advice and consent provision of article II, section 2, of the Constitution.

On a collision course with the nuclear threat from North Korea is the question of how to deal with Iran's increasingly aggressive nuclear posture. A month ago the President hinted darkly that he would not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon in Iran; but he has been largely silent on the issue in the ensuing weeks. When asked during a rare press conference earlier this week about the potential for war with Iran, the President placed the burden for seeking a peaceful solution squarely on the shoulders of the international community, without suggesting any role for the United States beyond ``convincing others'' to speak to the Iranian Government. When it comes to dealing with the threat from Iran's weapons of mass destruction, it appears that the White House is deferring to some of the same countries and institutions, including the International Atomic Energy Agency, that it dismissed as inconsequential during the runup to war with Iraq.

Like North Korea, the options for dealing with Iran are limited, but dodging engagement in favor of sporadic saber rattling is scarcely the wisest course of action. Equally unhelpful are ominous hints that the United States is contemplating covert action to precipitate regime change in Iran. Unlike North Korea, Iran has not demanded direct negotiations with the United States. Before it comes to that point, and the United States is faced with the perception of being blackmailed into negotiations, the administration should seize the initiative and not abdicate its responsibility to other nations and other institutions. Here again, the administration cannot afford to ignore the storm warnings and hope the crisis will simply blow over.

The situation in Liberia raises a different, but no less volatile, set of issues. Rent by violence and reeling from the effects of a three-way conflict between an illegitimate government and the warring rebels who want to unseat it, Liberia is desperately seeking help from the United States. The President raised expectations for U.S. intervention during his highly publicized visit to Africa earlier this month, but it has been several weeks now since his return, and still no clear policy with regard to Liberia has emerged from the White House.

The question of whether the United States should intervene in the Liberian crisis is fraught with unknowns and uncertainties. The humanitarian crisis calls out for relief. And yet the solution is elusive, and the danger of ensnaring U.S. military troops in an intractable civil war is not to be underestimated. Can the Economic Community of West African States, known as ECOWAS, raise a force sufficient to stabilize the unrest in Liberia? Could the United States help without sending in ground troops? Is the United Nations prepared to take over peacekeeping operations once the situation is stabilized? Can the United States afford to assist Liberia? Can the United States afford to ignore Liberia?

The questions are tough, but procrastination is not an acceptable response. Hundreds of innocent civilians are suffering and dying as a result of the conflict in Liberia. Monrovia is in shambles. Last week, July 25, the President took the tentative step of ordering several thousand U.S. Marines to be positioned off the coast of Liberia, but how or whether any of those troops will be deployed remains unknown. Indecisive, half-hearted gestures serve no purpose. As long as there is an expectation that the United States will intervene, African states are unlikely to take independent action to deal with the situation in Liberia. The President needs to determine a course of action, he needs to consult with Congress and the United Nations on pursuing that course, and he needs to explain his reasoning and his strategy to the American people.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week on July 24, GEN Peter Pace, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, termed Liberia ``potentially a very dangerous situation'' that poses ``great personal risk'' to American troops. Any decision to send American troops into that war-torn country is a decision that must be carefully thought through and be made in concert with Congress and the international community, not simply presented to the American people as an after-the-fact notification.

The situation in Liberia, and the other crises brewing around the world, require more attention and more explanation from the President than the usual off-the-cuff comments tossed to reporters at the end of photo ops. This is not a summer for the President to spend riding around the ranch in his pick up truck. This is not a time to play to the television cameras with the ``bring 'em on'' school of rhetoric. The problems confronting the United States require the President's serious and undivided attention. The American people deserve a full accounting from the President of where he stands on critical international issues, and how he intends to deal with them.

Against the backdrop of the war in Iraq and the emerging crises in North Korea, Iran, and Liberia, the largely

forgotten war in Afghanistan--the largely forgotten war in Afghanistan--continues to grind on and on and on more than a year and a half after the United States rousted the Taliban from power and obliterated al Qaeda's terrorist training camps. Nearly 10,000 American troops remain in Afghanistan, with no end--no end--to their mission in sight--and no clear mission to accomplish--hunting the remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaida organizations. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein's sons have been killed, and one can only hope that we are closing in on Saddam Hussein himself, but in the wider war on terrorism, Osama bin Laden remains at large, and his organization continues to spread its venom throughout the Middle East and perhaps the world.

The alert issued earlier this week by the Homeland Security Department is only the latest reminder that the al-Qaida terrorist network remains a potent threat to America and its allies. The warning included specific details--such as the fact that targets might include the East Coast of the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, or Australia and it raised the possibility that at least one of the planned highjackings or bombings could be executed before the end of the summer.

In the face of such a frightening specter, it is somewhat unsettling that on the subject of terrorism, the President is talking tough to Iran and Syria, but he seldom mentions Osama bin Laden anymore.

Is this another example of the President's efforts to change his message to divert the attention of the American people, the people who are watching through those electronic eyes above the Chair's desk? The imminent and direct threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was used to hoodwink the public into accepting the rush to war, but now that no weapons have been found, the President barely mentions them anymore. Instead, he is now talking about how regime change in Iraq was really the catalyst required to stabilize the Middle East. New day, new message.

At the center of America's imperiled relations with its friends and foes alike is the Bush doctrine of preemption, which was first articulated in the September 2002 National Security Strategy. This unprecedented declaration that the United States has the right to launch preemptive military attacks against hostile nations in the absence of direct provocation sent shockwaves throughout the international community.

The doctrine of preemption was the justification for attacking Iraq without provocation, but the ramifications of the policy go far beyond that nation. All so-called ``rogue regimes'' were put on notice that the United States was prepared to act to deter the development of weapons of mass destruction that could be used against America.

Suddenly, the elite club of nations that formed the President's ``axis of evil'' found itself caught in the cross hairs of the U.S. military. And just as quickly, the hollowness of the doctrine was exposed. Iraq could be attacked at will because it did not have nuclear capability. North Korea called for restraint because it plausibly did have nuclear capability. Iran was a question mark. Predictably, both North Korea and Iran, seeing the writing on the wall, began to scramble to accelerate their nuclear programs. In retrospect, the doctrine of preemption is beginning to look more and more like a doctrine of provocation.

Against this background, the storm clouds of international instability are massing. America's military forces are stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our military leadership is absorbed with Iraq. Our military resources, both financial and personnel, are strained to the breaking point. With the exception of Britain, our allies are reluctant to commit significant resources or manpower to an operation in Iraq in which the United States has a stranglehold on authority and decision-making. The executive branch is preoccupied with the occupation of Iraq and seems paralyzed when it comes to meaningful action to deal with North Korea or Iran or Liberia. Afghanistan and the global war on terror have seemingly been relegated to the status of afterthoughts. America's foreign policy appears to be adrift in an increasingly tumultuous sea of international turmoil. Meanwhile, the national terror threat continues to hover uneasily in the ``elevated range'' amid new warnings of terrorist attacks being plotted against commercial aircraft.

In this moment of great potential peril, the President is preparing to retire for a month to his ranch in Texas. The question needs to be asked: Who's minding the White House?

In a short time, the Senate will recess for the month of August. I do not think we should go very far. I hope that the international situation will remain stable, and that no new crises will erupt. But I do not pretend to be sanguine. I do not pretend to assume that all will be well.

A rare combination of volatile and dangerous international events are poised to converge in the coming months. In large part, it is a storm of this administration's own making, fueled by the fear, confusion, and instability caused by the unprecedented and ill-advised doctrine of preemption. I only hope that the President and his advisers can summon the skill, the wit, and the leadership to engage and attempt to tame the elements of international turmoil before it is too late and we are swept up into the vortex of the storm.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I have been asked by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina to ask unanimous consent that he be recognized following me.

Mr. President, an apocryphal tale is often told by professors of economics in classrooms across the country. It is a tale about a king who asks his advisers to teach him the laws of economics. The king's advisers return with a book on the subject. But the king tells his advisers that his time is precious, and he asks them to summarize the book. The king's advisers return with a single piece of paper. But the king again tells his advisers that his time is precious and he sends them away to summarize the lesson even further. The king's advisers finally return with a single line, summarizing all of the known laws of economics.

The king reads: ``There is no such thing as a free lunch.''

For most people, this is a universally accepted truism--just plain common sense--that nothing is free. There are tradeoffs and opportunity costs to every decision we make. Even a child can understand this most basic economic principle. But for the Bush administration, you can beat them over the head with their own budget and still they will not acknowledge the tradeoffs and opportunity costs of the budgetary decisions they have made.

On July 15, the administration released its mid-year budget and economic forecast, the so-called ``Mid-Session Review.'' The Office of Management and Budget revealed to the American people that the Government would run an incredible, record-breaking $455 billion deficit in the fiscal year 2003. Worse, the deficit will increase to $475

billion in the fiscal year 2004. I daresay that is a low figure. The administration estimates that if the Congress enacts the President's policies, we will increase the public debt by $2 trillion over the next 6 years.

The OMB Director assured the public that these deficits were ``manageable . . . sustainable . . . not a problem.''

In other words, a free lunch.

When the Bush administration promises almost $3 trillion in tax cuts, a prescription drug benefit, a record increase in defense spending, more money for education and health care, claims that it will protect Social Security and Medicare for future retirees, and asks for nothing in return--that is more than a free lunch; it is a cost-free invitation to a White House banquet.

The American people may recall the last free lunch this administration tried to peddle.

Prior to the war in Iraq, the Bush administration promoted a vision of Saddam's removal from power as a quick, easy, and bloodless exercise. Indeed, most of the support for this war was based on the rationale that America's tremendous military superiority over Iraq would confine the costs of this war to a relatively painless contest between the United States' awesome military might and the relatively weak, conventional military of Saddam Hussein.

But now the true costs of the war are becoming more apparent. The number of U.S. casualties in Iraq has risen to 248 soldiers--and rising by 1 soldier per day or more--more than double the 123 deaths at the time the President declared victory in Iraq on May 1.

Families of reservists and national guardsmen, who thought that their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives would return after major combat had ended, are now realizing that their family members will be in Iraq indefinitely.

Administration officials who were counting on U.S. allies to assist in peacekeeping efforts in Iraq are now realizing that our strong arm tactics have alienated many of our closest allies.

The United States is now committed to a long-term endeavor to rebuild Iraq, which is costing the American taxpayer $4 billion per month.

The administration hid the potential costs in the buildup to the war. Now, the American people are realizing that free lunch will be paid for with our Nation's treasure, prestige, and blood.

So I take little comfort when this administration promises another free lunch, when it describes its budget deficits as ``manageable'' and ``not a problem.''

With $475 billion in budget deficits projected for the upcoming fiscal year, this Nation is experiencing budget deficits never before seen. They amount to roughly one-fifth of the entire Federal budget. This forces the Federal Government to borrow $1 out of every $5 it spends. And much of that money will have to be borrowed from our allies overseas--that is, those allies that we have not already alienated.

With a $475 billion budget deficit, next year, the Federal Government will have to borrow more than the entire defense budget. For every military operation underway right now--in Iraq, Afghanistan, Liberia, the Balkans--and to maintain our current military defenses, the administration will have to borrow the money to pay the equivalent of those costs.

With a $475 billion budget deficit, the recently enacted tax cuts are not free. Ultimately, the American people will have to repay every dollar to balance the budget.

When the President is pinned down about the mounting deficits, he has two replies. First, they are small and not a threat. But the deficits assumed in his budget are the highest ever recorded, and, as long as we are running deficits, we are not saving to ensure the solvency of the Social Security and Medicare programs. There is no escaping that budgetary fact--none.

Without more savings, we are endangering the Social Security and Medicare programs.

The President tells us that we can grow out of deficits. Well that sounds nice, but it won't happen. The Congressional Budget Office, which is now headed by a former White House economist, formulated nine different economic models to predict how the recently enacted tax cut would affect the economy, and the CBO concluded that the President's proposal would have only a negligible effect.

Even with strong economic growth, the White House budget office is still projecting that the Nation will accumulate $2 trillion in new debt under this administration's proposals, and that doesn't include the $5 billion per month the administration is spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, Mr. President, we are drowning in a sea of red ink. We are gasping for air. And all this administration can do is promise more cost-free White House banquet dinners as they claim it is ``not a problem.''

But it is a problem! We are already seeing these deficits eat into our budget. Just look at the amendments that were opposed by the administration on the recently passed appropriations bill for the Homeland Security Department.

Under pressure from the administration, Senators voted down amendment after amendment after amendment designed to enhance the security and the safety of the American people. Spending for vital homeland security functions is being denied each time with the same excuse--that our budget doesn't allow for it. We are spending nearly $4 billion per month in Iraq, but we could not afford a $1.75 billion amendment that I offered to secure our ports, to equip and train our first responders, and to secure our borders.

It is incredible! The budget that calls for astronomical tax cuts does not allow for the safety and security of the American people within their own borders.

Al-Qaida has not yet been destroyed. It is very much alive and kicking. It is still alive and well, and planning attacks now, attacks against U.S. citizens. Al-Qaida are patient, persistent killers. And, yet, this administration continues to oppose, right here on this floor, essential homeland security funding. Just this week, the Department of Homeland Security issued a new advisory about the potential hijacking of planes, and yet the administration opposed my amendment to secure cargo on passenger aircraft. Our ports, our borders, our airlines, our chemical facilities, our nuclear powerplants are still perilously vulnerable.

Have we not learned anything, Mr. President?

The war on terrorism can only be won with both a strong defense and a strong offense. And, yet, the ratio of defense to homeland security spending is 12 to 1. That is $1 of spending to build up our homeland defenses for every $12 spent on our military.

We are seeing only a halfhearted effort by this administration to address the vulnerabilities in our infrastructure.

We talk about the infrastructure in Iraq. What about our own infrastructure? The administration says they are going to do something, but not enough to thwart terrorist attacks. It should frighten us all. It certainly frightens me.

When I stop to think, I say to Senator Hollings, that you and I and these people around us who are sitting at the desks--the President at the desk, the desk of the workers here--when I stop to think that we are alive today, in all likelihood, because there were a few courageous men on that airplane that went down in Pennsylvania who had heard about the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. And because their own plane was a little late in taking off, they heard these other things. They knew what was happening. They knew what was happening to that plane and they decided that plane would not reach its objective. And from all indications that I have heard, its objective was this Capitol. So we owe our lives to them. We would not be here today. That is the way I see it.

Now, we also hear that these terrorists don't forget, that they are persistent, they are patient. They take their time and they come back. What they fail to do in the first instance, they will try again. We better take these things seriously.

The President has established a track record for being strong on rhetoric and short on resources. In his State of the Union, he said:

We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass

along our problems to other Congresses, to other Presidents

and other generations.

Yet, according to the White House's latest deficit estimates, the President's

policy is to have a deficit of $455 billion this year, $475 billion in fiscal year 2004, and an increase in the public debt of $2 trillion over 6 years. That is rhetoric without resources.

In May of this year, the President signed the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS Act, which authorized $15 billion over 5 years to attack global AIDS and authorized $3 billion for fiscal year 2004. He traveled to Africa and pressed for the Congress to support the $15 billion commitment. Yet, the President requested only $1.9 billion for global AIDS programs for fiscal year 2004. That is rhetoric without resources.

In January of 2002, the President signed the No Child Left Behind Act with great fanfare. He said:

Today, begins a new era, a new time in public education in

our country. As of this hour, America's schools will be on a

new path of reform, and a new path of results . . . And our

schools will have greater resources to meet these goals.

And, yet, President Bush's budget for fiscal year 2004 proposes to cut funding for No Child Left Behind Act programs by $1.2 billion below the levels that Congress approved for the current fiscal year, to a level that is $6.1 billion below the level authorized in the law that he, the President, signed 18 months ago. More rhetoric without resources.

The President has called for the National Service AmeriCorps program to have 75,000 volunteers to tutor, mentor, and teach our children, provide services for our elderly, and clean up our communities. This month, the Senate approved a $100 million supplemental that would have prevented the elimination of 20,000 volunteers, reducing the program to 30,000 volunteers. The President did not lift a finger--he did not lift a finger--in support of the program when the House stripped those funds from a supplemental bill last week.

The President and members of his party have passed three tax cuts, taking $2.25 trillion out of the phoney surpluses that the President projected in 2001. Each time the President proposed these tax cuts, he promised that the tax cuts would create jobs. But the facts are different. Instead, we have seen 3.1 million jobs disappear from the private sector since the beginning of this administration, including more than 300,000 jobs lost within the past 5 months. So, once again, we hear rhetoric, but we see no results. More false promises.

We are seeing the same halfhearted effort when it comes to preserving the Social Security and Medicare programs. The Bush administration often refers to the long-term problems facing the Social Security and Medicare programs, but the Bush administration has not set aside any money to make them financially solvent.

In the coming decade, as the baby boomers begin to retire, the American people are going to realize yet another cost from these budget deficits--namely that there will not be enough money saved to pay the benefits promised to our Nation's seniors. Our Nation's seniors ought to take note of that, and the children of our Nation's seniors ought likewise take note of that.

The administration's budget deficits are a problem for State governments, as well. Federal budget deficits have contributed to a $30 billion gap in State budgets because of a lack of Federal payments to States. This is to say nothing of the $68 billion shortfall in State budgets that we read about in recent weeks. Without Federal support, States are forced to cut Medicaid and health care-related programs. For the first time ever, K through 12 education programs are being cut by States to make up for a lack of Federal funds. This year, Oregon school districts were forced to close some schools a month early because of these budget deficits.

The administration vehemently opposes any increase in Federal taxes to cover its budget deficits. But what the White House doesn't admit is that State governments across the country are already raising taxes to fill this budget gap. Governors in 29 States have proposed tax or fee increases in their latest budgets.

President Bush likes to justify his tax cuts for the rich by asserting that it's the people's money. ``It's your money,'' he says. Well, thanks to Mr. Bush's tax cuts, we are facing a public debt of $5.5 trillion by 2008. Do you know how long it takes to count $1 trillion at the rate of $1 per second? Thirty-two thousand years. That is $1 trillion at the rate of $1 per second. So we are facing a public debt of $5.5 trillion by 2008. That is $18,890 of debt for every man, woman and child in this country. By 2008, we will be spending $260 billion on interest on that debt. In 2017, when the Social Security Trust Fund is in the red, the 65 million Americans who expect to receive their social security benefits, will ask, Where is our money? They were told ``it is your money.'' They will be saying: Where is our money?

Everything costs something. There is no free lunch. Yet the administration continues to play the role of the savvy salesman, handing out tax cuts and telling the American people that it will cost them nothing in return.

The administration will be forced to reconcile the budgetary quagmire they have created. Nothing is free. There is no such thing as a free lunch. That much, even an apocryphal king could learn.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, the Senate now takes up a fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations bill in the amount of $983.6 million to replenish the Federal emergency disaster relief fund in the Department of Homeland Security.

These funds are urgently needed. In April of this year, Senator Cochran, chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, and I, as the ranking member, urged the administration to release funds that the President was holding up and also urged the administration to request necessary funds to shore up a looming shortfall. Now we are told that the disaster relief fund has a balance of $89 million and is expected to be completely exhausted by August 8.

The President finally sent up an emergency supplemental request on July 7 for $1.55 billion to assist recovery efforts in West Virginia and over 300 other areas in every State of the Nation that had been hard hit by severe rains, floods, and tornadoes. It took the Senate Appropriations Committee, under the leadership of Senator Ted Stevens, only 2 days to report out the necessary $1.55 billion in supplemental funds for disaster relief. That legislation also included $253 million for fighting 42 major wildfires which have consumed over 400,000 acres in 12 Western States, as well as $50 million for unanticipated costs associated with the recovery and investigation of the Space Shuttle Columbia accident--all requested by the President.

That legislation also included $100 million for the AmeriCorps program in order to avoid deep cuts in the number of volunteers at a time when the President has proposed to increase the number of volunteers by 50 percent.

Only 2 days later, on July 11, this legislation cleared the Senate floor by a vote of 85 to 7, and conferees on behalf of the Senate were appointed. During Senate debate, the $100 million for AmeriCorps was voted on separately and was sustained by an overwhelming 71-to-21 vote.

Now here we are almost 3 weeks later. The House Members have gone home for an August recess. Just before they left, they sent over to the Senate a $983.6 million stand-alone supplemental for disaster relief only without the necessary funds for fighting the wildfires in 12 Western States, nor the funds for the Columbia Shuttle investigation, nor the necessary funds for AmeriCorps. According to the latest Department estimates, this funding level for disaster relief isn't even enough to make it to September 30. The House sent to the Senate this stripped-down, stand-alone supplemental for disaster relief on a take- it-or-leave-it basis.

This is no way to legislate. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee knows that I am not blaming him. He has been trying energetically to engage the House to accept the necessary funds for fighting wildfires, for the NASA shuttle investigation, and for the AmeriCorps shortfall. However, the House leadership and its allies in the White House have turned a deaf ear to needs of the firefighters in the Western States, the requirements of the NASA investigation, and the 20,000 AmeriCorps volunteers who are expecting to embark on a program of working in schools teaching our children reading and math, providing care to our senior citizens, cleaning up our parks, and other valuable volunteer services to our communities.

All of these funds are urgently needed, and none are more urgently needed than the funding for disaster relief.

I am advised that, because of the lateness of the administration's request, FEMA has already stopped making payments to States for $400 million of infrastructure repairs in the 300 communities with outstanding natural disasters. Communities have already been forced to put projects for repairing damage from past disasters on hold.

In my State of West Virginia, for example, I am told that payments for projects have not been made since February of this year almost 6 months ago. West Virginia is owed over $10 million in disaster relief fund payments. Of this amount, $7 million is owed for payments for repairs to dams, sewers, and public buildings, and $3 million is owed to reimburse the State of West Virginia for hazard mitigation, including acquisition and demolition of properties in floodplains and for relocating structures.

In McDowell County, WV, for example, FEMA owes $1.1 million to help McDowell County to acquire 64 structures that were substantially damaged or demolished in the June 2002 flood.

In the town of Welch, WV, FEMA owes $250,000 for a sewer project already completed by the contractor. The town is unable to pay the contractor for the work, which could result in a lawsuit.

A similar situation obtains in the city of Bradshaw, where the work has been completed to prevent raw sewage from being dumped into a river. In this case, an amount of $50,000 is owed to the contractor.

The West Virginia Conservation Agency, a State agency responsible for cleaning blockages forming in streams, dams, and reservoirs to avoid further flooding and damage, is owed $200,000 by FEMA. The State agency has an annual budget of $500,000 and FEMA's delay has caused the agency's balances to drop to near zero. As a consequence, should there be another flood in West Virginia, the State conservation agency would not be able to perform its work.

These problems exist all across the country. We cannot wait any longer. We must approve this urgent legislation. However, because of the intransigence of the other body, we will be acting, regrettably, without providing the necessary funds for fighting wildfires, for investigating the Space Shuttle Columbia accident, or for the shortfall in the AmeriCorps program.

Once again, the President has failed to follow through on his promises. This legislation is $566 million below the administration's budget request for disaster relief. It is $50 million less than the administration budget request for NASA. It is $289 million less than the administration's budget request for fighting wildfires. It includes no funds for the shortfall in AmeriCorps--a program the administration claims it supports.

By its failure to engage the House leadership in support of these funds, the President's silence speaks volumes. It is the same old administration theme of rhetoric without resources.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. I thank him for the knowledge he brings to the Senate on many matters. For these several years I have worked with him on the Appropriations Committee, he has shown himself to be one of the most knowledgeable persons on that committee and, with respect to energy, he has shown time and again that he is well equipped to enter into debate and to help to form good legislation, better legislation, or the best legislation.

I have always found him to be one who is easy to work with. I enjoy working with him and I compliment him for the time he has put in on this matter that is before the Senate. He arrives at his conclusions after due and deliberate examination, and he is a first-class legislator.

I thank the distinguished Senator. He has distinguished himself in many fields.

Madam President, on pleasant summer days, such as these, I doubt that the average person worries too much about the intricacies of energy policy. However, energy is the life's blood of our economy. Obviously, a comprehensive energy policy is a critical underpinning for a viable, strong nation.

And, there are real and growing concerns about the Nation's energy security--about our teetering economy and about our growing dependence on foreign oil. Coupled with these is an increasing need to protect the environment and address global climate change. But instead of looking for balanced and comprehensive solutions to our critical energy problems, this administration drags its feet and deals with our energy challenges by meeting

behind closed doors with select corporate contributors.

As is often the case, this White House offers shortsighted, silver bullet solutions. But, in fact, there are just no silver bullet solutions to a sound and comprehensive energy policy for the future. There is no Lone Ranger approach to energy. There is no John Wayne approach to energy. We have to consider the worldwide energy supply and demand. We must be ready to invest in a range of policies, technologies, resources, and institutional structures that can prepare us for the future.

During the 2000 election cycle, the Bush campaign claimed that the creation of a national energy strategy was one of its most important priorities. But what they meant by that may not be what many people thought they meant. Even as candidate Bush traveled the Presidential campaign trail, the issue of energy often shared the stage with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, in part because both candidates were formerly business executives with ties to the energy industry. My own home State of West Virginia, where energy issues are very important, played a critical role in pushing the Bush-Cheney team over the top in the electoral college and handing the current administration the White House.

But, after his election, the President seemed more interested in seeking the advice of his corporate friends than developing a balanced, comprehensive, far-reaching energy policy. It may be illustrative here to review the background of some Bush administration officials. Vice President Cheney served as the CEO of Halliburton. Secretary Norton has lobbied for the oil, gas, and auto industries. The President's Chief of Staff has served as the president and CEO of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association. The U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, has served on Enron's Advisory Council. Even National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was honored by Chevron with a supertanker named after her. With such close connections to big corporate donors, one has to wonder about who really influences the energy agenda of this administration.

Upon taking office, the Vice President led a task force that hammered out the new administration's energy strategy for the Nation. After months of work, the National Energy Policy Development Group issued its report in May 2001. It was praised in some camps, criticized in others. The criticism arose because executives from Enron and other big corporate contributors played a major role in the recommendations of that task force. To many, the task force recommendations for a national energy policy appeared to be little more than an industry wish list.

When the General Accounting Office and outside groups requested basic information about the Vice President's task force, the White House claimed executive privilege. Throughout the court battle which ensued, the Bush Administration repeatedly claimed that the separation of powers and executive privilege prevented them from releasing pertinent documents. As a result, the credibility of the White House energy strategy development is certainly strained, to say the least, especially with regard to the oil industry.

I have been particularly concerned about our continued reliance on foreign oil and our lack of commitment to developing domestic fuel diversity. Tackling that growing problem requires a serious and multi- faceted commitment, involving cooperation and coordination among many players. But what the President seems to be proposing can be pretty much boiled down to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and exploiting the oil reserves under the hot sands near the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, in the Fertile Crescent--modern day Iraq.

U.S. domestic oil production peaked in the early 1970's, and, since that time, our oil demands have far outstripped our supplies. But instead of figuring out how to disentangle ourselves from foreign oil dependence, the Bush administration seems to be intent on sinking our energy fortunes deeper and deeper into the hot sands of old Mesopotania--the hot sands of the Middle East. What is this administration's total energy agenda? Is oil the only card in the energy deck which the administration will play?

It certainly appears so. And one has to wonder just how that card is being played. As the world witnessed in the war in Iraq, the administration was much more interested in protecting, defending, and developing Iraq's oil resources than it was in protecting Iraq's cultural or social resources. Early on in the war, coalition forces were ordered to make it a priority to protect the oil fields. Upon their entry into Baghdad U.S. troops were ordered to surround and protect Iraq's oil ministry. Despite clear warnings, coalition forces left Iraq's priceless museums and other government institutions defenseless. On top of that, U.S. forces failed to protect nuclear test facilities. This is especially puzzling in light of the administration's often stated concerns about dirty bombs and the pilfering of nuclear material by terrorists. So where are our priorities? What is the United States really up to in Iraq?

If the United States were really intent on developing a smart, commonsense oil policy, we would be taking additional measures to better balance our supplies from other nations; we would be carefully using our strategic reserves to hedge against future foreign manipulation; we would be promoting industrial energy efficiency, and we would be nurturing all forms of alternative sources for our energy and transportation needs, including coal, renewable, and biomass-based sources.

I have proposed my own commonsense proposal to help mitigate the growing global dependence on oil supplies from volatile regions. The United States encourage the transfer of our own clean energy technologies to other nations, especially developing countries who will increasingly be buying into the same finite oil markets that we are purchasing from. Such efforts are critical in order to satisfy our energy security needs as well as to address related economic, job creation, trade, and environmental objectives. The demand for oil from other countries will be increasingly fierce, and we have only a narrow window of opportunity ahead. Last year, the administration, at my urging, released a plan for just such an initiative intended to help open international markets and export U.S. clean energy technologies. However, little, if anything, has been done to implement it. Where have we seen this strategy before? The answer is, we have seen it virtually everywhere with this administration--from homeland security to No Child Left Behind.

Furthermore, the administration's Fiscal Year 2004 budget confirms some of my worst fears. When it comes to domestic issues, the plan of administration officials these days is about outsourcing, downsizing, reorganizing, reducing, cutting, slashing, slicing, dicing, and carving up the Federal Government. It is a tailor-made infomercial for the benefit of all-too-receptive corporate donors.

The administration's energy budget is a sham, and its energy program requests are no different. The Department of Energy cut $20 million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative. The Department of Energy's oil and gas research program was cut by more than 50 percent. In order to squeeze enough dollars out of the budget for the President's new hydrogen initiative, other critical energy programs were severely cut. Yet the administration's hydrogen program is years away and cannot serve as a substitute for conservation, energy diversification, or other key energy programs. Moreover, a proliferation of ``new'' initiatives have been announced by this administration that are purported to solve our energy needs, especially for fossil fuels. We have the hydrogen initiative, a carbon sequester program, FutureGen, a national climate change technology initiative, and more. My question is: Can anyone explain how these ``new'' initiatives will work together? Where is the money to provide for all of this without compromising other important efforts? The fact remains that there is no major increase in real funding or commitment for energy programs, just a proliferation of empty words from this administration. I do not believe we can treat our energy illnesses with the administration's current budget prescription.

In the 107th Congress, both the House and Senate actually passed comprehensive energy policy bills. After lengthy

debate in conference, important progress was made. A number of compromises were struck, but in the end the conferees could not reach a final agreement. This should come as no surprise.

In fact, this administration made no real effort to help get a comprehensive, national energy strategy passed. President Bush suggested that energy was a cornerstone of his administration's agenda, but what did he do during the energy conference in the 107th Congress? Nothing. Oh, his rhetoric may have sounded good on the campaign trail. He tried to talk a good game, but when it counted, the administration took a decidedly hands off approach.

This new Senate Energy bill, S. 14, the House Energy bill, H.R. 6, and the White House's interest overall are intended to cater to the administration's friends in industry. That is it. That is all. In its present form, these energy bills are no victory for our country. They are a victory for special interests and a text-book example of our inability to set a long-term energy policy course. Now, we are on the brink of another important opportunity squandered. While there are some solid trees planted in the bill, this legislation will not produce the diverse energy orchard we must have to meet our needs down the road. The President and the Republican-controlled Congress are simply not prepared to make the tough choices that the Nation needs for a viable, long-term energy policy. How long will we wait?

The President would love a one-day Rose Garden ceremony and a 2004 campaign press release. But, given this administration's track record, an energy bill would simply be another empty soapbox for this President to stand on, as he has already demonstrated with the education soapbox, the farm legislation soapbox, Afghanistan soapbox, and the Homeland Security soapbox, and other soapboxes. The Congress has passed bills and supported the administration's rhetoric, but then the necessary resources to carry them out never materialize. This is the same fate that awaits an energy bill this session.

It takes leadership and it takes hard work to move forward in a responsible, balanced, and intelligent way on energy policy. Yet this administration makes do with a cheap knockoff. It looks like the real thing, but it is a fraud and a fake. It is much like cotton candy. At first glance, it may look good, but there is just no nutrition. In reality, it is just puffed air.

In the last 5 years, I have worked hard to help develop a balanced and bipartisan package of provisions to advance our national energy policy goals--provisions that could go a long way toward addressing both the near- and long-term energy needs of our Nation, while also providing numerous benefits both at home and abroad. These provisions garnered bipartisan support in the Senate Energy bill in the 107th Congress, including clean coal, climate change, international technology transfer, and other important provisions. Together, these initiatives represent a bold new enterprise--stepping stones along a 21st century energy pathway.

Yet the administration seems intent on just blocking many of these bipartisan ideas. For example, in a May 8, 2003, statement on the Senate Energy bill, the White House stated, in part:

The Administration is not convinced of the need for

additional legislation that would attempt to limit or direct

U.S. global climate change, and will oppose any climate

change amendments that are inconsistent with the President's

climate change strategy . . . we urge the Senate to allow . .

. the President's strategy to go forward unimpeded.

Well, I continue to ask, just what is the President's strategy-- cotton candy?

Last session I introduced legislation with Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska that would allow the United States to deal more easily with the complex issues involved in climate change. The amendment to be offered by Senator Bingaman is based on last year's Senate-passed provisions. It would create a comprehensive strategy based on credible science and economics to guide American efforts to address climate change issues in our own backyard and around the world. This amendment also would establish a major research effort to invent the advanced technologies that we will need to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. We must develop a commonsense package of technology, science, policy and other market-based measures to address this growing global problem. And it is growing. The question is what are we waiting for?

Specifically, the Bingaman amendment includes provisions that would commit more than $4 billion during the next decade to vastly expand U.S. research into technology that could help to address the problem of global climate change. The amendment provides for the creation of a more focused administrative structure within the Federal Government, including an office in the White House to coordinate and implement a national climate change strategy. We cannot continue to just ignore this problem.

This amendment does not mandate a reduction of emissions by American companies. Instead, this package places the Nation on a commonsense glidepath that is both achievable and sustainable. It provides the framework to address the long-term goal of stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations by working with other nations, while leaving the actual technology and policy decisions to energy experts and the marketplace.

China, Brazil, and India, among other states, will soon surpass the industrialized world in emissions of greenhouse gases. It is important that we work in coordination with these nations to reduce their emissions at an early stage. American know-how, technology, and ideas can help to lead to the implementation of a range of marketable clean energy technologies, not just in the United States, but also around the world.

It is time for real action. A cherry-picked energy plan based on soliciting big industry campaign contributions is a bankrupt policy. It takes this Nation nowhere, and it puts our future at risk.

We cannot continue energy programs and budgets if we ever hope to meet our long-term needs. We cannot continue forestalling the development of a long-term energy strategy with a phantom plan. The Nation is at a turning point. Our energy policy needs must stop being dominated by a crisis management policy. We must work to enact appropriate energy legislation so that we avoid the consequences of our long failure to respond. We cannot wait for the next energy crisis or the next spike in natural gas prices--or the next California electricity debacle. We cannot just go out and seize another oil rich country in order to solve our energy problems. We must enact bipartisan energy legislation that will deliver a thoughtful and reasoned energy package.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed out of order for not to exceed 12 minutes before the order to go into executive session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this not delay the rollcall vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may vitiate the second request that was granted.

Mr. President, I speak today on the subject: A fast track, a fast way around the Constitution.

Last Friday, I listened with great interest to the concerns that were raised in opposition to the free-trade agreements negotiated by the administration with Chile and Singapore.

Senators cited an abuse of Executive authority and the undermining of Congress' plenary powers. I was perplexed,

to put it mildly--not at the arguments against such abuses by the Executive but at the fact that some Senators were only now waking up to the potential for such a power grab.

To those who now express concerns that the plenary powers of the Congress are under attack by this administration, I say that we have no one to blame but ourselves. The Congress inflicted this wound upon itself. We have plunged the knife into our own throats. It is our hands on the hilt of that knife.

I refer to the Congress' massively destabilizing decision to disrupt the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches by granting fast-track trade negotiating authority to the President.

So many of the objections expressed last week in opposition to these free trade agreements have been raised before, time and time again on this Senate floor. Just last summer, they were raised by me, by our colleague Senator Hollings, by our colleague Senator Dorgan; by our colleague Senator Dayton, and others, warning of the abuse of Executive power we were inviting by handing over to the President the authority to regulate trade and international commerce.

We stood on this very floor and spoke to our colleagues, to the people in the galleries here and to the public across the land about what could be expected from the use of fast-track authority should such legislation be passed. We also spoke of the Constitutional ramifications of fast track. At the time, our expressions of concern apparently fell upon deaf ears.

Sixty-seven Senators, some of whom are now so urgently speaking in opposition to these free trade agreements pending before the Senate, voted to grant fast-track authority to the President.

I can pound my fist on my desk. I can shout with brass lungs. But, ultimately, it's not until it's too late, not until the Senate has been relegated to the sidelines, not until this Trojan horse has entered this sacred chamber that Senators begin to realize just what we have given away.

Shame on us!

This month, the administration submitted the free trade agreements it negotiated with the nations of Chile and Singapore. Included in those agreements are proposed changes to U.S. immigration and naturalization laws that would create what is effectively a permanent visa worker program for Chile and Singapore.

The trade agreements negotiated by the administration would unfairly lower the threshold for up to 1,400 Chileans and 5,400 Singaporeans to obtain American jobs. These foreign nationals could renew their worker visas indefinitely, year after year, with no limitation, while additional foreign workers enter the country to fill the annual numerical limitations for new visas.

Chilean and Singaporean nationals who enter the United States under these agreements would effectively be exempted from prevailing wage laws. Even though employers must attest that foreign workers will be paid the prevailing industry wage and not displace U.S. workers, the Labor Department would be prohibited from investigating and certifying these attestations prior to the worker entering the country.

Further, the Congress would have no recourse to remedy any injustice, either by setting numerical caps or requiring a Labor Department certification, without violating the trade accord.

With 9.4 million Americans out of work, and an economy that has stalled for America's workers, the administration's immigration proposals are perhaps the most egregious that I have seen in some time. They are a direct threat to American workers who have already been hit hard by the Bush administration's economic policies. And now, what jobs the administration has not yet destroyed are being given away to foreign labor.

It is not even clear under what authority the administration is proposing to make these immigration changes. The Trade Promotion Act provides no specific authority to the United States Trade Representative to negotiate new visa categories or other changes to our immigration laws. The Congress has not granted the administration any such authority.

To the contrary, since the September 11 attacks, the Congress has passed legislation requiring the administration to tighten our border security and visa entry system--to plug the holes that were exploited by the September 11 hijackers. And now the administration is trying to open the system all over again.

I doubt that these immigration provisions could survive outside of the expedited procedures of fast track, subjected to thorough debate and amendment by the House and Senate. But that may explain why they are in these trade agreements in the first place. After all, a free trade agreement is not subject to amendment. It is not subject to a thorough debate. Any committee action is token, at best. The Congress must approve or reject the trade agreement in 90 legislative days.

These trade agreements and their immigration provisions may only be a first step in setting a precedent where the administration can use free-trade agreements not only to propose changes to immigration laws but to isolate all kinds of controversial legislation from the Congress. Perhaps next time the trade agreement submitted will include changes involving our military defenses or our international tax laws or our foreign aid budget.

The possibilities are frightening to imagine.

The late-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond of saying that the U.S. Constitution does not assume virtue in its rulers. It assumes self-interest. And it carefully balances the power by which one interest will offset another interest in order to protect against what James Madison called ``the defect of better motives.''

I am sure that many Senators who supported granting fast track authority to the President did so because of their support for this administration's free trade policies. But in pursuit of free trade, the Senate has given away its power to regulate trade and international commerce, and has flung itself into the abyss in which it now finds itself. If the Senate approves these treaties, the President, who is not the repository of all human wisdom, and is as vulnerable to ``the defect of better motives'' as any other mortal being, will have a free hand, without debate and without review, to dictate not only trade policy, but immigration policy as well.

The Framers of our Constitution would, I am certain, be appalled at how, time and time again, the modern-day Congress, under pressure from the White House political machine, yields its plenary powers to the executive.

We did it with fast track. We did it with the creation of the Homeland Security Department. We did it with respect to the war in Iraq.

The Senate has a duty to reject these trade agreements. Even those Senators who support the administration's trade policies must take a stand in support of something more important. The executive is, again, overreaching and the Senate must not, this time, acquiesce.

The Senate desperately needs to come to a better understanding and appreciation of our Constitution and the powers granted the Congress. It needs a better understanding of what exactly is at stake when we carelessly meddle with our system of checks and balances and the separation of powers. If we disregard the lessons learned from the colossal blunder of granting fast track authority to the President, we might just as well strike a match and hold that invaluable document to the flame.

We are entrusted with the safeguarding of the people's liberties. It is their Constitution. It is their Republic. It is their liberties that we have sworn to secure. If we continue to be careless or callous or complacent, it is their cherished freedoms that will go up in smoke.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, for his courtesy in arranging for me to speak briefly before the Senate goes out for the weekend.

Mr. President, for more than a century now, national commentators of one type or another have stereotyped, mocked, and ridiculed the people of Appalachia.

They continued to do so even as the region and its people were savaged by Northeast industrialists, and as economic forces beyond their control resulted in massive gaps of poverty in the region. When I say ``their control,'' I refer to its being beyond the control of the people of Appalachia. The stereotyping of the Appalachian people as dim-witted, barefooted hillbillies who thrive on incest and moonshine allowed the Nation to laugh at and turn its back on the plight of a people who were being robbed of their land and its resources. It prompted the Nation to perceive and to dismiss Appalachians as the instigators rather the victims of their plight.

Television has certainly been a part of this Appalachian bashing. ``Green Acres'' featured farming mountain folks conversing with a talking pig. The ``Dukes of Hazzard'' featured stereotypical mountain folk jumping into and out of cars, without bothering to open doors, and a car horn that played Dixie.

Even ``The Waltons,''--remember the Waltons?--a series with numerous morally uplifting episodes and storylines that promoted hard work, love of family, honesty, patriotism, and spirituality, can be faulted for its beautifully romanticized version of poverty. It portrayed poverty as a way of life that nurtures, rather than inhibits, that builds character rather than denies opportunity.

I have seen poverty. I am one of poverty's children. I have known poverty, and poverty has known me. I can tell you that poverty is beautiful only if you are not poor.

In this day and age of political correctness, Appalachians may be the last remaining ethnic group that it is still socially acceptable to scorn, demean, stereotype, and joke about. If Jay Leno told such cruel, bigoted, and slanderous ethnic humor about any number of minority groups that he does Appalachians, he would have more than the ratings of David Letterman about which to be concerned.

Incredibly, the Columbia Broadcasting System, CBS, is planning to air a new program, ``The Real Beverly Hillbillies.'' For this program, the brainchild of the CEO Leslie Moonves, CBS plans to pluck a poor, rural family from the hills of Appalachia and plop them down in a mansion in Beverly Hills so the Nation can laugh at them as they try to adjust to big city life. I have read that CBS is already conducting so-called ``hick-hunts'' in which they are searching for the perfect stereotype Appalachian family to amuse a national audience.

The insensitivity and mean spiritedness of this plan has already aroused protests and criticisms from many segments of American society including Appalachian social action groups, labor unions, and various State and national legislators.

The United Mine Workers of America, the Steel Workers Union, and Communication Workers have all protested the network's intent to ridicule good people and make fun of their lifestyles. Forty-three Members of the House of Representatives objected to the proposed program, saying it would be ``an insult to the millions of people living in Appalachia.''

While I am outraged, I am even more curious about just what kind of brain power went into proposing this show. I cannot help but chuckle when I picture these highly paid, supposedly educated television corporate executives sitting around in a plush, ornate boardroom and thinking of such a stupid program. I am sure most of these fellows earn at least a six-figure income. Some of them probably went to Ivy League schools. And this is what they come up with?

It is not even original. It is a plagiarization of an old program, only going a step further and using real people rather than actors.

Highly paid, highly educated television executives sitting around in an ornate boardroom and thinking of low-grade garbage such as this. If this were my staff, I can tell you that I would be looking for some new staffers.

But these CBS executives think it will be funny for city folk to sit back and watch country bumpkins try to blend into the culture of the ``beautiful people'' of Rodeo Drive. Their anticipation is that Americans will tune in and watch and just howl and howl as they watch a poor family from Appalachia adjust to the glitz and glamour of Beverly Hills, to modern appliances, Gucci shoes, and Rolex watches. Boy, I can hardly hold back my laughter, being one of those people from Appalachia, being one of those country bumpkins.

One CBS executive remarked: ``Imagine the episode where they have to interview maids.'' Boy, I am sure that episode will be a real knee slapper.

I have to ask, Is this the best they can do? Is this the best television has to offer? Unfortunately, it is.

Just when you think the television standards can get no lower, they do. Just when you start thinking these bottom feeders have cleansed the bottom and might try to move up the food chain, they find more garbage at the bottom to keep them there.

This is an Appalachian speaking to an Appalachian who sits in the chair today and presides over this great body with such dignity and aplomb.

Television has become more than the ``vast wasteland'' FCC chairman Newton Minnow labeled it 42 years ago, it has become a waste.

This is the industry that brings us ``Buffy the Vampire Slayer,'' ``Fear Factor,'' and ``Jerry Springer.''

Fox Network has featured those unforgettable, morally uplifting hits, ``Temptation Island,'' ``Joe Millionaire,'' and now the latest, ``Mr. Personality,'' which features the show's hostess, the talented Monica Lewinsky.

(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner.) If the distinguished leader would indulge the Presiding Officer to give the usual admonishment to those privileged to sit in the gallery of the Senate, they are not to enter into vocal expressions or disaffections.

I congratulate the Chair on upholding the rules of the Senate.

Let them laugh. I am laughing, too.

If these executives are looking for new ideas for television reality shows, may I suggest a few. We could take highly paid, well-groomed television network executives and relocate them to the sticks, where they'd have to try to find a job with health care and pension benefits and enough pay to support a family, and adjust to everyday life in rural America. Now that would be funny! And, as the president of the UMWA, Cecil Roberts, has suggested, we could put them to work digging coal from a 30-inch seam in a non-union coal mine. That too would be funny!

I could suggest a program where Americans could watch television anchormen trying to get to work on time each day while driving on hilly, winding two-lane roads behind huge coal trucks going 5 miles an hour up steep hills. We would watch their frustration build and build and could take bets on when they would blow their tempers. We could watch them get their $2,500 made-to-measure suits dirty as they are forced to change tires flattened by huge potholes created by those coal trucks. We could watch them pull their cars into garages and get the estimates for repairs to the damage those potholes have done. Then we could laugh hysterically as they present ``fleecing of America'' awards to Senators who try to get those highways improved.

Or we could watch nightly news programs featuring episodes of journalists embedded with a Marine battalion comprised of the sons and daughters of Bush administration officials as they are being shot at in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That, of course, would not be funny, but it would make an important point that war is a lot more glamorous and macho when it is someone else's kid you are sending into combat.

Television could be such a positive tool in our society and culture. It could be doing so much good. It could be a powerful instrument to bring out the best in us, rather than appeal to our meanest and darker sides. It could be a creative instrument in elevating the standards and values of the American people rather than lowering them. I strongly urge the executives at CBS to reconsider their plans for the ``Real Beverly Hillbillies'' in favor a program that is enlightening, educational, and beneficial.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I should not take advantage of my two friends because I have been included in the order. I was given 20 minutes. I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama and I thank also the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, in April of this year, Senator Cochran, as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, and I, as ranking member, recognized a looming shortfall in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, disaster relief accounts. We urged the President to release monies that he was holding up and also that he request funds to shore up the looming shortfall. Following severe floods in 19 West Virginia counties, I wrote to the administration again, this time pointing out that the Disaster Relief account would likely be empty by the end of July. At the time that I wrote that letter, the disaster relief fund has a balance of $181 million. The balance now, four weeks later, is a mere $89 million, and is expected to be completely exhausted by August 8th.

On July 7th, the President finally sent up an emergency supplemental request. After months of delay, the administration requested the additional funds to assist recovery efforts in West Virginia and over 300 other areas in every State of the Nation that have been hit hard by severe rains, floods, and tornadoes. These funds will help citizens to get back on their feet. The communication from the White House requested fiscal year 2003 emergency supplemental appropriations in the amount of $1.9 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, Agriculture, Interior, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA.

The principal item in this request was $1.55 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security for FEMA to provide support for ``ongoing disaster efforts and to ensure the capacity to respond to future disasters and emergencies.'' In a communication from Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, dated July 24, 2003, the Department now estimates that it will exhaust existing funds by August 8th and that it has no authority to provide assistance in the absence of appropriations.

The supplemental request also included an amount of $253 million for fighting wildfires. As some of my colleagues may recall, 42 major fires, which have consumed over 400,000 acres, are raging in 12 western States. Officials at the Forest Service have told the Appropriations Committee that their fire suppression budget is already $420 million short of what they anticipate needing between now and the end of the fiscal year. Also included in the Administration's request is $50 million for unanticipated costs associated with the recovery and investigation of the Space Shuttle Columbia accident.

In order to expedite the processing of this supplemental, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Ted Stevens, and I, as ranking member, worked together to assure the earliest availability of this emergency supplemental request by incorporating it into the fiscal year 2004 Legislative Branch appropriations bill. On July 9th, only 2 days after receiving the President's supplemental request, the Appropriations Committee ordered reported the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, which included the full amount for disaster relief, emergency firefighting, and emergency NASA needs sought by the President in his July 7th communication, as well as $100 million for a shortfall in AmeriCorps, a program which we were told the administration supports. The AmeriCorps amendment was voted on separately on the Senate floor and the funding was sustained by an overwhelming 71 to 21 vote. Susequently, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, including the supplemental, was approved on July 11th by the full Senate by a vote of 85 to 7, and conferees were appointed.

So what is the situation? The administration was slow in sending up the emergency supplemental budget request. The Senate Appropriations Committee, under the leadership of Senator Ted Stevens, responded quickly, acting within 2 days of receiving the request. And, within 2 additional days, on July 11th, the measure was approved by the full Senate. We have been waiting for the other body ever since. It has been 2 weeks since we acted on this bill in the Senate. We are advised that the other body plans to depart for the August recess tonight.

What are we to do to cover the costs of recovering from disasters and fire emergencies for the remainder of the current fiscal year? FEMA has already stopped making payments to States for $400 million of infrastructure repairs in the 300 communities with outstanding natural disasters. Communities have already been forced to put projects for repairing damage from past disasters on hold.

In addition, if the Disaster Relief Fund is depleted by the end of July, which is just around the corner, that leaves 2 full months with no means of providing assistance to communities that may be hit hard by hurricanes, tornadoes, and other disasters or emergencies occurring in August and September. The Forest Service budget request of $253 million for fighting 42 major fires in 12 western States is needed now.

Furthermore, twenty thousand AmeriCorps volunteers will lose their positions if supplemental funding is not approved. AmeriCorps volunteers work in our schools teaching our children reading and math. They provide

care to our senior citizens, they help clean up our parks, they teach the Nation's children and adults to read, and they provide other valuable volunteer services to our communities. If we fail to provide the necessary funds for AmeriCorps, we will unnecessarily be punishing the volunteers, the communities that they serve and the children, elderly and the poor who benefit from the skills and energy of the volunteers.

Some 2 weeks ago, the Senate responded positively and in a timely manner to address these emergency requests. Now, the House is about to pass a stripped-down supplemental appropriations bill in the amount of $983 million just for FEMA disaster relief, thus ignoring the Senate's supplemental legislation enacted 2 weeks ago for wildfire fighting, NASA emergency funds, and AmercCorps funding.

I am distressed by the situation in which we find ourselves. It is not the fault of the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Stevens. He has been trying to find a solution to this problem. The Senate has done its part to solve this problem. Citizens who find themselves victimized by natural disasters and wildfires, and those individuals and communities who would have benefited from the AmeriCorps program, do not appreciate the game-playing now taking place in the Congress.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I again thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I have three amendments. But I do not want to vote on my amendments in a stack. For my amendments, I want to have them voted on each after the debate on that particular amendment. I think that is the better way. I think whatever debate we can have on an amendment--I will say my amendment, and I have three--is fresh in the minds of those Senators who have been listening, or those who will listen, who are able to listen in their offices. I don't like stacked votes, as far as any amendments I have are concerned. Stacked votes may be for the convenience of Members, but, in my judgment, we are not here necessarily for the convenience of Members. We are here in this forum to debate and to act upon amendments that are in the interests of the Nation, as we see them.

So for the information of the distinguished manager, I do have three amendments, but I want to call them up whenever I can have votes on them following the debate.

Mr. President, I say further, if I may, what I have said is no reflection on the distinguished manager of the bill. He has been an excellent chairman of this new subcommittee and this is the first time we have appropriated on a full bill for this new Department.

The Senator from Mississippi could not have performed better. He has been very fair with the members of his subcommittee. He has always been very fair with me. What I have said is not to be taken as any reflection or criticism of him whatever. His work is trying to get this bill passed.

As the co-manager, I am interested in moving it along, too. But speaking from a personal viewpoint--and I don't call up many amendments of my own--I want to state to the Senator and to all Senators, while they are thinking of stacking votes, I have three amendments that I don't want in a stack. I want to vote on them when we have completed our debate. I don't want any 2-minute summation between other rollcalls. I think we have fallen into a kind of slipshod way of acting in the Senate. This is no fault of the Senator from Mississippi. I am voicing my sentiments with respect to my own amendments. I don't think it is a very good way to legislate, to line up six or eight votes. Sometimes we fall into a vote-arama, where we have a good many amendments called up, debated, set aside, and voted on later in a stack, when those Senators who perhaps listened during the debate have gone on to other things and have lost their recollection of what was said in the debate.

I think we ought to vote on amendments when we complete the debate. Perhaps that is not always practicable. I can understand that, having been a majority leader and having been a minority leader. I understand the practicalities of these things. But the ideal way to proceed is as I have suggested--with debate on an amendment and then a vote.

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

Mr. President, this week the Senate has considered a number of amendments to increase homeland security funding to address known vulnerabilities in our Nation. These are vulnerabilities we know are there. We have offered amendments to add funding for expanded homeland security missions that have been authorized by Congress and signed into law by the President since 9/11.

I believe these amendments have been defeated not on the merits but because their adoption would have resulted in the bill exceeding limits established in the budget resolution. These are meritorious amendments, and I am confident some of the Senators who voted against them voted against them because the bill would then exceed limits established in the budget resolution. That is a compelling reason for many to consider.

Therefore, today I offer an amendment that addresses these known vulnerabilities to the extent possible within the limits of our 302(b) allocation. I do so because the vulnerabilities are documented and the needs are clear.

This bill includes $823 million, consistent with the President's request for information, analysis, and infrastructure protection. Since February, we have asked--now listen--the Department of Homeland Security to identify for us what specific infrastructure in this country is most vulnerable.

To whom should we go to find out the answers, if not the Department of Homeland Security? That is the Department which should be able to pinpoint, should be able to give to the Congress, a list of the most vulnerable infrastructure and give us the priorities: Which is more vulnerable, A or B or C? That is the agency that ought to be able to answer the questions.

Have we gotten any answer to our questions? No, no answer. This is the Department that should be held accountable and will be held accountable, and the Department has not responded.

We have asked these questions more than once. So I shall offer an amendment that addresses these known vulnerabilities, to the extent possible, within the limits of our 302(b) allocation, and I do so because the vulnerabilities are documented and the needs are clear.

This bill includes $823 million, consistent with the President's request for information, analysis, and infrastructure protection. Since February--let me say that again--since February, we have asked the Department of Homeland Security to identify for us in the Congress, in the Senate, what specific critical infrastructure in this country is most vulnerable.

To date, the Department has provided no detail about how these funds would be spent--no detail, none. We requested it, as I say, as early as February and since February.

The President is asking us to buy a pig in a poke. The administration wants us to give them $823 million of the taxpayers' money and they have not told Congress how the funds will be spent or whether these funds can be used effectively. Now why wouldn't they tell us? Why wouldn't they tell us?

What we do know is that the Coast Guard has over $1.7 billion of pending applications for port security grants in order to secure our most vulnerable ports. We know that. What we do know is that the Coast Guard has estimated

the cost of the ports implementing the Maritime Transportation Security Act security standards is $5.4 billion over 10 years and $1.1 billion in the first year. So when you add the funds in this bill to previously appropriated funds, the Department would have only $518 million to help the ports improve their security.

What we do know is that the Department of Homeland Security received applications from over 20,000 of the Nation's local fire departments, totaling $2.5 billion out of their desire to equip and to train themselves to deal with weapons of mass destruction and to improve their capacity to respond to other emergencies in their communities.

What we do know is that only 10 percent of our fire departments have the capacity to deal with a major building collapse. What we do know is that only 13 percent have the equipment and training to deal with biological or chemical terrorist attacks.

What we do know is that the Coast Guard commandant has testified that there is no funding in the budget for the Coast Guard to enforce the new port security standards that are mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act and that the Coast Guard imposed on the port industry on July 1.

What we do know is that the General Accounting Office has concluded that 123 chemical facilities across the country--some of them in the great Kanawha Valley in West Virginia--has concluded that 123 chemical facilities across the country, if attacked, could inflict serious damage and expose millions of people to toxic chemicals and gasses. There are 3,000 chemical facilities in 49 States that if attacked could affect more than 10,000 people each. This is serious business. The General Accounting Office found that the Federal Government has not comprehensively assessed the chemical industry's vulnerabilities to terrorist attack.

This amendment would address those issues by providing $100 million for port security grants, $100 million for grants to fire departments, $42 million for the Coast Guard to implement the port security requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, and $50 million for chemical security vulnerability assessment.

This amendment is fully offset for both budget authority and outlays by reducing amounts in the infrastructure account by $292 million.

I say again that the amendment has fully offset both the budget authority and outlays by reducing amounts in the infrastructure account by $292 million. Even after this reduction, the infrastructure account will have a funding level which is three times the level from fiscal year 2003.

I urge the Senate adopt the amendment. The Senate should address these known vulnerabilities now.

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

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

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi uses an old phrase that I cut my teeth on when I worked in a meat shop back in the coal camps during the Great Depression. He speaks about this ``meat-ax'' approach--meat-ax. Meat-ax, my foot. Is this administration serious or is it not serious about homeland security? Is it serious or is it not serious? We have heard all this talk--or is it mere talk? Is it just rhetoric? Is it rhetoric without resources?

Let me say again, Congress, the Senate, has asked the administration, the Department of Homeland Security, for a list of its vulnerabilities. How would it spend the $823 million? We say to the Secretary of Homeland Security: How are you going to expend the moneys? What are the vulnerabilities? Tell us. The moneys have been sitting there unspent for how long? Ten months? What are the vulnerabilities? Tell us. We are the elected representatives of the people. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security wasn't elected by anybody to the current position he holds.

I have great respect for former Governor Ridge, but what are the vulnerabilities? Let us see your list. To date, no list. The Department has not responded. So we say: If you have $823 million sitting there, and we know that this Nation and its people cry out for security, we hear about al-Qaida being here and there, and about its being in Iran and about all the threats, the level of threats, we know about the code orange and code yellow and the code red--but no list. Where is the list?

I think we have a right to say if you are not going to show us a list, we know there are vulnerabilities, and we propose to spend some money to meet those needs. The American people are busy. Those who have jobs are busy trying to put a little bread and butter on the table. They cannot read all of the news stories about budgetary problems and 302(b) allocations. They depend on us in the Senate. They depend on the Senator from Mississippi. They are depending on the Senator from West Virginia. They depend on the Senator from Kentucky who presides over the Senate at the moment. They depend on the Senator from New York and the Senator from Vermont. They think we ought to know.

They think the Department of Homeland Security, which has been handed these responsibilities by the Congress, is taking care of everything. They think the Department is on top of the problem.

They believe their homes are secure and their schools are secure. They believe the vulnerabilities that have been talked about are being taken care of.

The American people go to their jobs every day and work hard. They return home in the evenings and read the newspapers. They watch the television news and talk with their families over the supper table. We still call it supper in West Virginia. They think all that is taken care of. Many of them rest easy because they think we are on the job, that we will do the job for them, and that we are looking out for them. We are not looking out for them.

I say to you the Department will not respond to the Congress. Of course, it is not a surprise to me anymore because this administration looks upon the Congress with contempt--at least that is my perception-- with utter disdain. Those peons up there, they want to know what the vulnerabilities are. We will tell them when we get ready.

Senator Stevens and I, upon more than one occasion in times gone by, have sought to add moneys to appropriations bills to meet the needs of the defense of this Nation and homeland security. The administration, with some apparent contempt, wrote us back on more than one occasion that the administration has everything well in hand. They don't need the extra moneys that you are wanting to provide. The administration is not ready for that. We will let you know. We on Mount Olympus from our ethereal atmosphere will one day let you know how much money we need, but not now.

That is the contemptuous attitude some of those people downtown have. It is pretty clear from their letters and from the way they spurn the Congress and turn the back of their hand to the Congress.

I say the American people ought not be misled. But they are being misled if they perceive and believe they are being protected, that we are on top of everything, and that the administration has its act together. They are wrong.

Here is an amendment that would address the known vulnerabilities to the extent possible.

I don't believe the American people ought to be misled. They ought to have a right to believe that we are attending to the gaps in their security.

The distinguished Senator from Mississippi speaks about this $823 million that is there, and if we do this little amendment we will be in essence robbing the account or taking away from account moneys that the Department knows better how to spend. Even with the reduction in this amendment, the account is tripled over the fiscal year 2003 level.

The chairman has called this amendment a meat-ax cut--meat ax. I bear a scar on my left thumb today put there by a meat ax. I know what a meat-ax cut is. A meat-ax cut in spending. Yes. The account would grow from approximately $180 million to $582 million. I don't see this as a meat ax cut. I don't see this as a cut.

Securing our ports is important to our infrastructure by any definition. It is important to our infrastructure. How could we better spend that money? The money is lying there. It is not being spent. And the Department won't even tell us in the Senate what

the priorities are, and how they would suggest those moneys be spent.

This amendment defines the infrastructure investments that we know about and know must be made.

I hope Senators will support this amendment.

There is nothing political about this amendment. The money has been appropriated for infrastructure. The Department in charge of the expenditures of this money won't tell the Congress how the money should be spent or what the priorities are or how the Department sees those priorities or how the Department intends to spend the money or how the Department would propose this money be spent or what the vulnerabilities are. The Department won't tell us that.

What are we to do? The American people think they are being secured. They are not.

I hope Senators will support this amendment and spend the money where it will do the most good--on where we know there are vulnerabilities to the Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last November Congress enacted the largest reorganization of the Federal Government in half a century. At that time, the Senate was under extraordinary pressure to pass a bill quickly. The President traveled the country giving campaign speeches accusing the Senate of not caring about homeland security. The Senate responded by hastily approving the massive reorganization before Members had a chance to study the contents of the 484 pages that were dropped into our laps just a few days before the vote.

There were a lot of items in that legislation that would not have survived scrutiny had the Senate spent more time debating the bill. A number of Senators objected to certain provisions in the bill and introduced amendments. But those amendments were never considered because the Senate voted to shut off debate.

A good many Senators wanted to put the bill behind us even if it meant settling for a bill that needed more scrutiny. One of the imperfections that the Senate was willing to accept was the unprecedented secrecy that was given to the new Department of Homeland Security.

Although the original version of the bill took a responsible, moderate approach to ensure public accountability, the final version that was dumped on the Senate gave the Department carte blanche to conduct its operations in secret.

I filed amendments to scale back this excessive secrecy, as did several other Senators. But those amendments were never considered because, as I have already indicated, debate was shut off by cloture.

Now we read in the papers that full advantage is being taken of the secrecy in the Department. Their friends and contributors in the private sector have a seat at the homeland security table. Corporate leaders and campaign contributors have been awarded coveted seats on the advisory committees that make policy recommendations to Secretary Ridge and to others in the Department.

Consequently, not only do these companies have a direct role in shaping our homeland security policy, but they also have direct access to Department officials who award the private sector contracts for implementing those policies.

Last month, for the first time, the Homeland Security Advisory Council met to provide advice and recommendations to the Homeland Security Secretary about this Nation's homeland security needs.

It is my understanding Secretary Ridge took the opportunity to remind the council that the Homeland Security Department was soliciting a wide array of innovative counterterrorism technologies. ``There are several million dollars available to the private sector,'' Secretary Ridge said. That information no doubt would have been more than just passing interest to the members of the advisory council. With six CEOs and a member of the board of directors from three top companies, the Homeland Security Advisory Council represents some of the top business interests that are in competition for government contracts related to homeland security.

It is worth noting that, according to the New York Daily News, of the 818 members chosen to sit on the advisory committee, 11 members have collectively given more than $200,000 in direct contributions to the Republican Party at a time when questions are already being raised about the propriety of former aides to Secretary Ridge lobbying a Homeland Security Department for Government grants. It is troubling that the Homeland Security Secretary would risk further damage to the Department's credibility by naming to advisory council representatives of top companies that are vying for homeland security contracts and grants.

At a time when questions are being asked or raised about the preferential treatment given to major corporate campaign contributors in bidding on Government contracts, it is disconcerting that companies such as Dow Chemical, Eli Lilly, Conoco-Phillips,

Black & Decker, Procter and Gamble, and Lockheed Martin are representatives serving on the advisory council.

This volunteering by these companies of their CEOs and board members to serve on the advisory council may well be a selfless act of patriotism, but that does not stop them from profiting from the contracts and grants awarded by the Department.

Eli Lilly used its connections to use a provision in the Homeland Security Act to shield vaccine makers from lawsuits relative to the use of thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative once added to childhood vaccines.

Dow Chemical received $1.4 million in port security grants from the Homeland Security Department last spring.

Lockheed Martin won a long-term contract to help modernize the Coast Guard, a contract that could be worth up to $17 billion. It also contracted to assist the Transportation Security Administration in developing CAPPS II, a controversial data tracking system that will reportedly collect information about nearly every adult American who buys an airline ticket.

Despite the specter of the conflict of interest, and despite numerous warnings from Government watchdog groups, the advisory council has been exempted from public disclosure laws. The American people have no way of knowing what is being discussed or what advice is being recommended. There is no way to identify the financial interests of these council members in any advice or recommendations they may make to Secretary Ridge.

With a $40 billion homeland security budget and the expectation that the Federal Government will spend hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming years on homeland defenses, corporate America is salivating over the money that is to be made from the grants and contracts being doled out by the Homeland Security Department.

Also, being at the table when advice is given to the Homeland Security Secretary can be a very powerful tool. That is all the more reason the Congress should provide the American public with some kind of check to ensure that the advice being given to the Secretary is in the best interests of the Nation's defenses and not just in the best interests of companies soliciting a Government contract.

I am concerned about the makeup of these advisory committees and how they are being used. We have no way of knowing what kind of recommendations these corporate CEOs are making to Secretary Ridge or what actions this Department is taking in response to those recommendations. We have no way of knowing whether there are real conflicts of interest when contracts are awarded to the same people who recommended the contracts in the first place.

By requiring that the Department of Homeland Security comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, my amendment will ensure that Congress and the American people know how these advisory committees are being used. This law has served us well for over 30 years for advisory committees throughout the Federal Government. It includes long-accepted protections for sensitive information relating to law enforcement and national security, so there is no danger of disclosing information that would make our Nation more vulnerable.

My amendment will require that the Department disclose basic facts about who is participating in these advisory committees and what kinds of recommendations are being made. The American people have a right to know that the Department of Homeland Security is acting in their best interests, not simply in the interests of any administration's friends in the private sector. This knowledge will strengthen our homeland security efforts, not weaken them, and will ensure public confidence in the policies that any administration--not only this one, but any future administration--chooses to follow.

The safety of the American people is at stake. I believe the amendment will make the people safer and better informed.

I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment.

Mr. President, I call attention to the fact that the amendment is proposed by Mr. Byrd, for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Levin.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton's name be added as a cosponsor.

I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, the Secretary can, under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, exempt committees from notice rules in an emergency

under existing law, whenever he determines it is necessary for national security.

It is important that this amendment be adopted. We are not just talking about this administration. We are not just talking about this Secretary of the Department. We are saying that there should not be a blanket exemption available to any Secretary of this Department, when we keep in mind that from a national security standpoint, the Department is exempted, the President can exempt it, the Department head in this case can exempt it.

But there are matters other than national security which are important and which are discussed by this Department. For the protection of the American people not only under this administration but also under other administrations that may come and may go, this amendment should be adopted. It is in the interest of the American people that they be protected and that we know that the American people know who is being asked to make recommendations, what recommendations are being made and whether those recommendations are in the interest of the American people.

I hope the amendment will be adopted. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of it.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment by Mr. Durbin. I believe it has been cleared on the other side of the aisle. The manager will speak to that. I send to the desk the amendment.

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

Mr. President, I move that the vote by which the amendment was agreed to be reconsidered.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Feingold. This, too, has been discussed with the manager of the bill who will speak to it himself. I send the amendment to the desk and ask that in the reporting of the amendment, that further reading be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

It has been cleared on this side, may I say to the Senator from Mississippi.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1379

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1380

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feingold, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared with the managers on both sides of the aisle. It provides for a report from the General Accounting Office on the data-mining programs from the Department of Homeland Security. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

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

Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared by the managers on both sides. It provides the Secretary of Homeland Security with flexibility in determining priorities for firefighting vehicles.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stevens of Alaska be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Landrieu, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. The amendment provides for a report from the Department of Homeland Security regarding radar coverage gaps at our Nation's borders.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, it was just 1 year ago that the Senate was preparing to begin debate on the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. The September 11 attacks had occurred just 9 months earlier, and fear that more had to be done to protect the homeland pervaded.

In that atmosphere, at a time when few wanted to look too closely at the fine print for fear of being labeled a stumbling block to the enhanced security of the American people, the administration pushed through a bill to create a huge new Federal department, the Department of Homeland Security.

The budget for the Department of Homeland Security is $28.5 billion, a level well below that needed to meet the Nation's true and pervasive homeland security challenges. Billions of those dollars are up for grabs in that budget for entities outside the Department, and outside the Government.

The administration repeatedly reminds the American people that the next terrorist attack could come any day, any time, anywhere. Do not think that companies have not noticed. The Department's budget is being eyed like a huge honey pot. Thousands of U.S. companies are reinventing themselves, repackaging products, rearranging priorities, renaming operations, and just plain salivating to cash in on what they hope will be hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending on domestic defense.

Some companies would like to sell their wireless communications systems to Government emergency response agencies. Others are hoping to win a Government contract to produce an antidote for anthrax. Still others are pitching their software as an ideal tool for integrating sensitive computer systems in the defense community. One company is trying to persuade the Federal Government to buy its dial-up video technology to install onboard thousands of airplanes to monitor cabin security. One software giant has already sold its financial management software to the Transportation Security Administration.

Go to the Washington Convention Center and one will find vice presidents of homeland security divisions standing in promotional booths describing homeland security technology that would be ideal for the Homeland Security Department. Publicly, the Homeland Security Department says it will judge businesses upon merit, but that is not stopping the more experienced insiders from quietly gobbling up contracts with the help of Washington's lobbying corps.

The campaign finance research group PoliticalMoneyLine reported last spring that in early 2002 there were 157 companies registered to lobby on homeland security issues. By April 2003, the number had more than tripled to 569, and this month the New York Times reported that the number had grown to 799. A New York Times editorial read, in part, the big boom in lobbying in Washington in the past 18 months has been in the lucrative world of homeland security where the role of new registrants intent on selling the Government antiterror products and services has grown fivefold to 799 and counting.

So lobbying firms are creating whole new departments for the sole purpose of lobbying for homeland security contracts. In fact, the homeland security lobbying industry has blossomed full flower. The spring rains have not had any impact on them. I failed to set out my tomato plants this year because of the heavy rains, but the rains have not stymied the growth of these lobbying activities.

The Federal Homeland Security Department is still being stitched together while the homeland security lobbying industry has blossomed full flower. Among these lobbyists are a number of former aides to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge who are lobbying on behalf of companies seeking contracts with the new Department of Homeland Security.

Last April, the New York Times reported that at least four of Secretary Ridge's senior deputies at the White House are working as homeland security lobbyists, as is his chief of staff from his days as the Governor of Pennsylvania.

I ask unanimous consent that this article from the New York Times news service be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

The Times article is dated April 29, 2003.

I also ask unanimous consent that the New York Times editorial to which I earlier referred, dated July 8, 2003, be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

Many Senators may not be surprised by these revelations. It is a well-established practice for former Government workers to lobby their old colleagues. What is alarming about this situation is how quickly Secretary Ridge's former aides stepped into new careers as domestic security lobbyists. Those very people responsible for setting up the Homeland Security Department are the first people standing in line with their hands out. These are the same people who argued so vociferously in favor of rolling back the civil service laws to allow contractors more access to Government work. They said that the new Secretary must have the flexibility to run the new Department, to hire and fire public servants, and now some of those same people are working for the very companies that are competing for homeland security contracts.

The Homeland Security Secretary has promised to put into place strict ethical standards to make sure the agency's decisions are based on merit. I commend him for the promise but I am impatient for the follow- through. Chairman Cochran has taken the bold step of not earmarking first responder, science and technology and infrastructure funds for specific communities or specific technologies. This action places a great deal of discretion in the hands of the Secretary and his staff. We must make sure that in allocating

the funds contained in this bill, that the decision making process is fair, even-handed and free of improper outside influence.

So, I am offering an amendment to apply the same ethical post employment standards that apply to Senators and their senior staff to employees of the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Homeland Security within the White House. All employees who have an income of 75 percent or more of a level II of the Executive Schedule, which is comparable to a Senator's pay, would be prohibited from lobbying the Department of Homeland Security or the Office of Homeland Security for one year. An individual who violates this restriction would pay a civil penalty equal to 100 percent of all gross receipts received by the individual from the conduct that violated the restriction.

The appearance of impropriety is enough to suggest that we cannot wait for Secretary Ridge to issue new ethics rules for his sprawling, young department. The administration has pinned the hopes of the American public on this new department being able to protect them from another terrorist attack, and even the appearance of a conflict of interest undermines the department's mission.

We cannot afford to handicap this new department. I urge the adoption of my amendment.

Exhibit 1

[From the New York Times News Service, Apr. 29, 2003]

From Ridge Aide to Security Lobbyist

(By Philip Shenon)

When Tom Ridge arrived here after the Sept. 11 attacks and

opened the White House Office of Homeland Security, he

quickly surrounded himself with a group of trusted deputies,

many of them drawn from the staff he had assembled when he

was governor of Pennsylvania.

But when Ridge was sworn in this year as the first

secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, many of his

inner circle did not follow. They took a spin through

Washington's revolving door, emerging as lobbyists whose

corporate clients want contracts from Ridge's multibillion-

dollar agency.

Lobbying disclosure forms filed in Congress show that at

least four of Ridge's deputies at the White House office are

now working as ``homeland security'' lobbyists, as is a chief

of staff from his days as Pennsylvania governor.

They are a small part of a booming new lobbying business in

Washington that is focused on helping large corporations get

a share of the billions of dollars that will be spent by the

vast domestic-security bureaucracy that Ridge oversees.

Ridge and the Homeland Security Department, with a budget

of about $40 billion this year, are obvious targets for an

array of industries and their lobbyists in the capital.

``My one year is up, so I can lobby him and lobby the White

House and lobby the Hill,'' said Rebecca Halkias, who was

Ridge's legislative affairs director in the White House,

referring to the one-year ban on contacts between former

senior government officials and their colleagues.

Halkias, who also managed Ridge's Washington office when he

was governor, is now a partner in a lobbying company, C2

Group, and congressional filings show that her clients

include Tyco electronics, which is eager to sell its wireless

communications systems to government emergency-response

agencies.

``I'm not really comfortable talking about homeland

security lobbying,'' Halkias said in a brief telephone

interview, declining to answer most questions. Asked if she

was concerned about any conflict of interest in lobbying

Ridge, she said, ``This conversation is over,'' and hung up.

There is nothing unusual about former government workers

lobbying their old colleagues. The surprising thing about

Ridge's former aides is how quickly they chose to take up new

careers as domestic-security lobbyists.

Ridge's spokesmen at the Homeland Security Department said

that he was giving no special attention to products that were

being promoted by lobbyists who had worked for him at the

White House or in Pennsylvania.

The boom in domestic-security lobbying is viewed

skeptically by government watchdog groups, which say they

intend to monitor closely how the department spends its money

and how Congress appropriates money to Ridge.

``Homeland Security appears to be viewed by the lobbying

firms as a huge honey pot,'' said Fred Wertheimer, president

of Democracy 21, a group that advocates restrictions on

corporate lobbying.

Mr. President, the able Senator from Mississippi is correct in stating that this provision would apply postemployment standards to more employees at the Department of Homeland Security than other executive departments. The amendment applies the same standard, as I indicated, as is applied to Senators and their senior staffs.

The reason I believe this amendment is appropriate is that the legislation creating the Department gave the Department extraordinary authorities. For example, the Department has extraordinary flexibility with regard to civil service rules and procurement standards. Secretary Ridge and his staff were given unusual discretion and perhaps that is why lobbyists are swarming all over the Department.

I believe my amendment is appropriate. I think it is in the interests of the American people that we adopt this amendment. Congress should do no less. I urge my colleagues to join in voting for the amendment.

I send the amendment to the desk.

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

I concur with the distinguished Chairman's assessment and support the Senator from Rhode Island's efforts to assist his State's airport.

I concur with the remarks of the distinguished chairman and I support the interest of the Senator from Rhode Island in establishing an investigative presence in his State. There is no substitute for having investigators and special agents on the ground who are closely familiar with the ports of entry and organizations they are required to monitor.

Mr. President, last week, the Senate approved a bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense. That bill totaled some $368.6 billion. It is an important bill, both in size and in importance. That $368.6 billion bill pays our men and women in uniform. It pays for all the advanced weapons and technology that make the Armed Forces of the United States second to none on the planet. The Department of Defense appropriations bill funds the forces and activities that keep the United States at the forefront of military activities around the globe, protecting American interests and lives as well as responding to humanitarian and security crises in distant lands.

That $368.6 billion does not include, mind you, the actual costs of the war on terrorism. Our activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, aside from salaries paid to military personnel, are funded through supplemental appropriations--over $60 billion thus far. But that $368.6 billion does provide the weapons, the forces, the training, and the infrastructure that allow the Armed Forces to provide a very high level of preparedness, a very high level of readiness, and a very high level of security. It provides the means to keep U.S. troops stationed in Korea, Japan, and Europe as a uniformed tripwire and global 911 emergency service. In its unanimous vote in favor of the bill, the Senate has indicated its support for that level of funding and for fully supporting the men and women serving in our military.

This week, the Senate has debated an equally important appropriations bill. The bill under consideration this week funds the Department of Homeland Security. It pays the salaries of the men and women whose job it is to keep safe the people of the United States here at home. It pays for the advanced technology needed to prepare American communities to defend against and respond to attacks against Americans on U.S. soil and in U.S. airspace. It pays for the forces, border patrol and inspectors strung out along America's vast land and sea borders, striving to keep dangerous people and materials out of our vulnerable heartland. It pays for America's infrastructure security, America's traveling public. In every way and by every measure, the activities funded in the homeland security appropriations bill are as important as those funded in the Department of Defense appropriations bill.

So how much money will we spend on protecting Americans here at home in fiscal year 2004? Well, it is not $368.6 billion. Mr. President, it is nowhere close to $368.6 billion. It is not half that amount, or even a quarter of that amount. It is just $28.5 billion. In fiscal year 2004, this bill funds the Department of Homeland Security at $28.5 billion, almost 13 times less than the amount approved for the Department of Defense.

Do we care about the world outside our borders 13 times more than we care about Americans at home? I do not think so. Do we care about guarding Baghdad 13 times more than we care about guarding our own borders? I do not think so. Do we care about patrolling the skies over Afghanistan and Iraq 13 times more than patrolling the thousands of commercial airliners streaking over our heads right now? I do not think so.

I do not believe that this amount is adequate. Over the last year, we have all read the press reports about security lapses at our airports, border checkpoints, and elsewhere. Things are improving, but not nearly fast enough. This bill does not do enough or go far enough to provide the Federal resources necessary to assist a community that falls victim to a terrorist attack, and it is woefully inadequate to provide individual States and communities the resources to prepare themselves to respond to such an attack. Indeed, given the number of reservists and National Guard troops who have been called into active service, our Federal Government is robbing States and communities of critical core defenders. If an attack does come, state governors may not have the resources on hand to respond effectively, and Federal support may or may not materialize in a timely manner, especially if attacks occur at a number of places simultaneously. The so-called war on terrorism has put troops bristling with arms across the globe, but it is leaving America with a hollow core, its towns and communities undefended.

I know, as does everyone who reads the paper or watches the news, what a difficult State the economy is in. I, too, have shaken my head at the latest forecast on the size of the deficit. At an estimated $455 billion, this year's deficit surpasses even the Department of Defense budget. We have had a very difficult year in the Appropriations Committee, trying to craft bills under these circumstances. But just as we should not and will not shortchange the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line every day in Baghdad, Kabul, Seoul, and elsewhere, we should not shortchange the families they leave behind and the men and women in uniform who patrol our coast, our borders, our airports, and our streets, and who prepare every day to face the unthinkable of a deadly biological, chemical, or nuclear attack here at home.

These defenders of American security here at home need all the help that we can give them. They, too, need new tools to help them face and defeat their enemies. They need sensors that can detect toxins and pathogens in near real time, so that contaminated areas can be cordoned off and proper decontamination procedures initiated. They need communications systems that let doctors and epidemiologists track and contain disease outbreaks, be they from infected prairie dogs, mosquitos, or more nefarious vectors. They need scanners to rapidly and effectively check the million of tons of cargo that enter the United States every day. They need better ways to protect the free and open commerce that will return the United States to a vibrant and growing economy. These tools and technologies may not be as sexy and high tech as antiballistic missile technology, or as imposing as an Aegis cruiser, but they are just as necessary for creating and maintaining the security and well-being of our Nation.

We must not forget that it is the individual communities and their State governments that will bear the brunt of any response to a terrorist event, just as they bear the brunt of responding to other natural and manmade disasters.

On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked on two fronts, in New York and in Washington, DC. Both locations were well served by their large emergency response teams of police, firefighters, and rescue crews.

The fact is, every State and every community must be prepared to respond, or to assist neighboring communities should multiple attacks occur--whether it be Fairmount, WV, or Fairbanks, AK, Chicago, IL, or St. Paul, MN. Many communities are not ready. The first line of prevention--and defense--is the local and state leadership, not the Federal Department of Homeland Security. While the Department of Homeland Security fiddles with selecting a common computer operating system, the towns around Rome may burn. These communities need guidance, and funding, and they need it now. The Department of Homeland Security needs to get its game face on and get moving, both to do its many jobs better, and to fulfill its role in helping States and local governments to prepare for the unthinkable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

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

Let's see how much we provided.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The regulatory impact on the Maritime industry will be

significant, and the time line for implementing the new

robust maritime security requirements is exceptionally short.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I have a list of amendments which have been cleared by the distinguished Republican manager of the bill, Mr. Cochran, and have been cleared on both sides. They are on behalf of Senators Bingaman, Dodd, Byrd, Murray, Reid of Nevada, Conrad and Dorgan, and Edwards. I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc, agreed to en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that the amendments appear in the Record as though individually considered and adopted.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.

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

Mr. President, the amendment I have offered on behalf of the Senator from New Mexico calls upon the General Accounting Office to submit a report on the implementation of the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System known as SEVIS.

amendment no. 1354

(Purpose: To ensure that there is a robust program of research and

development for the Coast Guard)

On page 50, line 16, after ``United States:'', insert the

following: ``Provided further, That of the total amount

provided under this heading, funding to operate and maintain

the Coast Guard Research and Development Center shall

continue at the fiscal year 2003 level: Provided further,

That the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall conduct a study,

the cost of which is not to exceed $350,000, to be submitted

to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the

House of Representatives, on the research and development

priorities of the Coast Guard and a design for a new research

and development organizational structure within the Coast

Guard that ensures that the Coast Guard has access to the

most advanced technology necessary to perform its missions

effectively: Provided further, That the Commandant may seek

an independent entity to conduct such a study:''.

On page 67, line 8, before the period at the end, insert

the following: ``: Provided further, That the Under Secretary

for Science and Technology shall work with the Coast Guard

Research and Development Center regarding research priorities

for the Coast Guard: Provided further, That there may be

credited to and used for the purposes of this appropriation

funds received from State and local governments, other public

authorities, private sources, and foreign countries, for

expenses incurred for research, development, testing, and

evaluation''.

Mr. President, the amendment I have offered on behalf of Senator Dodd does two things:

One, it ensures that funding to operate and maintain the Coast Guard's research and development, R&D, center in Connecticut is funded at levels provided in fiscal year 2003, which was $9 million supporting a staffing level of 107 employees. The Senate bill, as reported by the committee, denied the President's request for Coast Guard R&D and instead added $15 million to the Department's science and technology account to carry out the Coast Guard's R&D priorities. However, the committee intended for the operational costs of the Coast Guard's R&D center in fiscal year 2004 to be funded from the Coast Guard's operations and expenses budget.

Two, the amendment directs the Commandant of the Coast Guard to conduct a study on the R&D priorities for the Coast Guard and to examine the existing R&D organizational structure of the Coast Guard. The amendment allows up to $350,000 to be spent on such a study.

amendment no. 1355

On page 75, line 5 delete all beginning with ``after'' down

through and including ``Act'', and insert: ``the Secretary of

Homeland Security has published in the Federal Register the

Department's privacy notice for CAPPS II or no later than 60

days after enactment of this Act, which is later''

Mr. President, this technical amendment requires the General Accounting Office to report to the Committees on Appropriations on the privacy protections in the Transportation Security Administration's program known as, CAPPS II.

This report will be delivered either 60 days after the Secretary of Homeland Security has published in the Federal Register the Department's privacy notice for CAPPS II, or no later than 60 days after enactment of this act, whichever is later.

amendment no. 1356

(Purpose: To provide funding for oil spill prevention)

On page 51, line 24, after the word ``equipment'', insert:

``including $3,500,000 for defense message system

implementation and $1,000,000 for oil spill prevention

efforts under the Ports and Waterways Safety Systems (PAWSS)

program''.

Mr. President, the Murray amendment included in the manager's package provides $1 million for the Ports and Waterways Safety Systems, PAWSS, which is the Coast Guard's program to improve waterway safety. The $1 million would continue efforts of the Coast Guard to upgrade technology at their Vessel Traffic Systems, VTS, which are located at nine U.S. ports.

The amendment includes an offset of $1 million from the Coast Guard's Defense Messaging System Implementation.

amendment no. 1357

On page 75, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

Sec. 616 (a) Congress finds that--

(1) emergency responders are the first line of defense in

protecting our Nation against terrorist attacks;

(2) the Department of Homeland Security uses population as

a factor when allocating grant funding to States and local

governments for emergency responders;

(3) population plays an important role in both formula and

discretionary grants, which are administered by the

Department of Homeland Security;

(4) the number of people in any city or State often differs

from estimates by the Census Bureau;

(5) large groups of tourists regularly visit many American

cities and states, but are not included in the resident

population of these cities and states; and

(6) the monetary needs of emergency responders are directly

related to the amount of people they are responsible to

protect.

(b) It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of

Homeland Security should take into account tourist population

as a factor when determining resource needs and potential

vulnerabilities for the purpose of allocating funds for

discretionary and formula grants.

Mr. President, the amendment offered on behalf of Senator Reid, expresses the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Homeland Security should take into account tourist population as a factor when determining resource needs and potential vulnerabilities for the purpose of allocating funds for discretionary and formula grants.

It is my understanding that this amendment has been cleared by the majority and has been adopted.

amendment no. 1358

(Purpose: To require the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response to review any outstanding claims by the University of North

Dakota relating to damages and costs associated with the April 1997

flooding in North Dakota and report to Congress on the efforts to

resolve such claims)

On page 75, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

Sec. 616. Not later than 30 days after the date of

enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary for Emergency

Preparedness and Response shall--

(1) review the damage survey reports and project worksheets

relating to the damages and costs incurred by the University

of North Dakota as a result of the April 1997 flooding in

North Dakota, which is classified by Emergency Preparedness

and Response as DR-1174-ND; and

(2) submit a report on the efforts of the Directorate of

Emergency Preparedness and Response to resolve any

outstanding claims by the University of North Dakota relating

to the reports described in paragraph (1) to--the Committees

on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives.

Mr. President, I support the amendment of Senator Conrad and Senator Dorgan. I understand the amendment also has the support of the majority.

The amendment would direct the Under Secretary of emergency Preparedness and Response to review and report back to the Homeland Security appropriations Subcommittee on efforts to resolve the outstanding disaster claims from the University of North Dakota.

Only $718,675 is in dispute between the University and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate related to damages the university sustained during the 1997 flood.

These claims have been pending for 6 years.

Senator Conrad and Senator Dorgan have been working to resolve them, but the Department has been less than cooperative.

I support the efforts of my colleagues to bring this matter to closure.

I concur that this funding could be used as the Senator from New Mexico describes.

I also agree that the Department of Homeland Security should continue the efforts that have been initiated by the Senator from New Mexico. There are serious needs that ought to be met along the border in his State, and it is my belief that the Department should continue to construct vehicle barriers using the funding we have provided in this bill.

National infrastructure simulation and analysis center

I agree with my colleagues and I encourage the NCDDM to apply for the grants under this office. As a training center for those who oversee our State and local first responders, this program should be in good standing for Office for Domestic Preparedness grant programs.

Yes, I am also aware of this program and understand that, for the first time, Florida's local and State law enforcement officials have access to an integrated law enforcement database that can provide them with the needed law enforcement information.

The committee is aware of the benefits of this program to States in winning the war against terrorism. I believe it qualifies for continued funding from the Department.

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

Mr. President, the Nation's eyes have been turned to war overseas. The country's focus has been on the daily battles in Iraq. On the news almost daily there have been reports of American soldiers still dying. While the President arguably says that the mission in Iraq has been accomplished, the mission to protect our citizens here at home is far from complete.

Immediately after September 11, 2001, there was a great outcry for strengthening homeland security. Congress responded, infusing $40 billion into the war on terrorism--including efforts to better protect our citizens here at home. But since those early weeks after that clear September morning, the momentum has slowed. The pace has slackened. Homeland security initiatives are falling behind.

Just last month, former Senator Warren Rudman chaired a task force at the Council on Foreign Relations that examined investments in police, fire, and emergency medical teams. This blue ribbon panel included Nobel laureates, U.S. military leaders, former high-level government officials, and other senior experts, and was advised by former White House terrorism and cyber-security chief Richard Clarke. The results of their examination should shake this Congress from its homeland security slumber and especially it should shake the White House from its slumber and from its focus elsewhere.

The task force found that, nearly two years after 9/11, the United States is drastically underfunding local emergency responders and remains dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil, particularly one involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-impact conventional weapons. The panel concluded that, if the Nation does not take immediate steps to better identify and address the urgent needs of emergency responders, the next terrorist incident could be even more devastating than 9/11.

Imagine that, more devastating than September 11, 2001.

The underlying legislation before the Senate is the Fiscal Year 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. It provides more than $28 billion for a variety of programs, from better border security to natural disaster response efforts. But while this is a step forward, the legislation does not accomplish enough. It does not provide the investments in protections that the Nation so desperately needs.

This fact is not the fault of Subcommittee Chairman Thad Cochran or Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens. The hand that they were dealt was poor from the start. But that does not mean that this Senate needs to settle for less than is needed.

The amendment that I have offered would add critical dollars to some of our Nation's most vulnerable entities. It is a responsible $1.75 billion approach to begin to close the enormous gaps in America's homeland security. The amendment to which I address my remarks at this time is about fulfilling our promises to the American people. After 9/ 11, Congress passed the Patriot Act. It passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act. It passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. It passed the Enhanced Border Security Act. And the President signed these with great fanfare. But when it comes to securing our homeland, the administration follows the same pattern. The President seems to be satisfied with rhetoric, which doesn't cost anything, rather than working with Congress to provide real dollars.

The amendment I offer today is intended to fulfill the promises made for securing our homeland. It would add a total of $1.75 billion for critical homeland security programs. The amendment adds: $602 million for Maritime and Land Security, including port security and transit security; $729.5 million for first responder funding for our police, fire and emergency medical personnel, including funding for high threat urban areas; $238.5 million for security improvements at U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico; it includes 100 million for air cargo security; and it includes $80 million for protections at chemical facilities.

With public warnings ringing in our ears from Secretary Ridge that another terrorist attack is inevitable, some may argue that our homeland security needs seem endless, and therefore the Congress must set limits. I agree that they are endless and that Congress must set limits. That is why this amendment focuses on the specific expanded homeland security missions that Congress has authorized since 9/11, but that the administration has yet to adequately fund. Unfortunately, the budget resolution endorsed by this White House has forced us to exclude from the bill some funding that both the Congress and the President have recognized as being real needs. This amendment focuses on those critical shortfalls. It puts the beam on those critical shortfalls. It puts the microscope right down to their level.

One of the mysteries about the President's budget is the budget for the Transportation Security Administration, or TSA. TSA was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 and was supposed to focus on securing all modes of transportation. Yet the President's budget includes only $86 million or 2 percent of the TSA budget for maritime and land security. Yes, I said 2 percent--just 2 percent of the TSA budget for maritime and land security. The rest of the President's budget request is for aviation security and for--you guessed it--administration. What about securing our ports? What about securing our trains? What about securing our railroad tunnels, and our subways? What about buses or securing the trucks that carry hazardous materials?

In fact, the President's budget requests 2.5 times more for administering the TSA bureaucracy than he does for securing the Nation's ports, trains, trucks, and buses.

This amendment would add $602 million for maritime and land transportation funding. To his credit, Chairman Cochran provided $295 million for these programs. My amendment further enhances the good work Senator Cochran has begun.

On November 25, 2002, the same day that the President signed the Homeland Security Act, he also signed the Maritime Transportation Security Act--MTSA, putting in place significant new standards for improving the security of our 361 ports around the Nation. On July 1, the Coast Guard published regulations putting the MTSA into action.

During the Senate Appropriations Committee's homeland security hearings last year, one witness, Stephen Flynn, noted that the Nation's seaports:

. . . are the only part of an international boundary that the

federal government invests no money in terms of security. . .

. Most ports, the best you get is a chain link fence with

maybe some barbed wire.

Let me repeat that. The Appropriations Committee of the Senate conducted hearings last week, anent homeland security. And we heard testimony from mayors, Governors, and from seven Department heads--I am talking about Departments in the President's Cabinet--and from FEMA as well. And one of these witnesses was Stephen Flynn. Here is what he said about the Nation's seaports. He said:

[They] are the only part of an international boundary that

the federal government invests no money in terms of security.

. . . Most ports, [he said] the best you get is a chain link

fence with maybe some barbed wire.

Comforting? Is that comforting?

Consider that U.S. ports receive 16,000 cargo containers per day and more than 6 million containers per year. Consider the fact that U.S. ports are home to oil refineries and chemical plants that process noxious, volatile chemicals. Consider the additional fact that there are 68 nuclear powerplants located along U.S. waterways and that the average shipping container measures 8 feet by 40 feet and can hold 60,000 pounds. Consider, further, that a ship or tanker transporting cargo can hold more explosives and dangerous materials than could ever be smuggled in an airplane or a truck crossing a land border.

Yet despite the clear danger, the best port protection the American people

have is a chain link fence? It is unfathomable--unfathomable--why we have not insisted this amendment be signed into law months ago.

This amendment would make sure that more than a chain link fence is protecting the Nation's ports. Not too much to ask, is it?

The Coast Guard has estimated that it will cost the ports $5.4 billion during the next decade to implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act standards, including $1.1 billion this year; and yet the President did not request one thin dime--can you believe it, not one dime--for port security. The amendment that I will offer, which is at the desk, would increase port security grant funding from the $150 million contained in the bill by $460 million, thus providing a total of $610 million for this program.

The Commandant of the Coast Guard testified before the House authorizing committee on June 3, 2003, about the implementation of the MTSA legislation. Here is what he said:

The regulatory impact on the maritime industry will be

significant, and the time line for implementing the new

robust maritime security requirements is exceptionally short.

However, the administration, while aggressively supporting Federal security funding for the aviation industry, has failed in four straight spending requests to include a single penny--not one red cent--for port security grants even though 95 percent of all non- North American U.S. trade enters our 361 ports around the Nation. This is serious.

During our Homeland Security Subcommittee hearings this spring, I asked Under Secretary Asa Hutchinson why there was no money requested in the President's budget for port security grants and Mr. Hutchinson testified that he believed it was the responsibility of the port industry--the responsibility of the port industry. Yet the port industry's first priority is moving goods through ports as quickly as possible because that increases profits. There must be incentives if we are to realistically expect the ports to improve security.

This year, the Transportation Security Administration received over $1 billion of applications from the ports for the limited funding that was approved by Congress last year. There clearly is a demand from the ports, for help to harden physical security to reduce the Nation's well documented seaport vulnerabilities. These are vulnerabilities that are well documented.

The amendment also addresses other important homeland security needs authorized by the Maritime Transportation Security Act--and yet again not funded.

The Maritime Transportation Security Act requires that vessel and port facility owners prepare and submit security plans to the Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of deterring a transportation security incident. The Coast Guard serves as the lead agency to develop a National Maritime Transportation Security Plan and review all security plans prepared by vessel or facility owners or operators.

To meet requirements set in the MTSA, vessel and facility owners must submit security plans to the Coast Guard for review and approval by the end of calendar year 2003. But, once again, the administration provided no funding to the Coast Guard for this effort or for tracking compliance with the plans in its fiscal year 2004 budget request.

In recent testimony, Coast Guard Commandant ADM Thomas H. Collins acknowledged that the Coast Guard still needs an additional $70 million and 150 full-time employees by this fall to review and approve more than 10,000 security plans by vessel and facility owners. My amendment provides the money.

My amendment also provides $57 million for public transit grants. According to a Mineta Transportation Institute study, one-third of terrorist attacks worldwide have been on transportation systems, and transit systems are the mode most commonly attacked. According to the study, nine surface transportation systems were the target of more than 195 terrorist attacks from 1997 through the year 2000.

The approximately 6,000 transit agencies in the United States provide more than 9 billion trips each year representing 43 billion passenger miles, and yet the administration has provided minimal funding for transit security.

The General Accounting Office, the GAO, recently reported that:

Insufficient funding is the most significant challenge in

making transit systems as safe and secure as possible.

Mr. President, at just 8 of the 10 transit agencies surveyed, the General Accounting Office identified the need for security improvements estimated at $700 million. The General Accounting Office also found that:

TSA has yet to exert full responsibility for the security

of any transportation mode other than aviation.

The chemical attack on the Tokyo subway system in 1995 is a sobering reminder of how a terrorist attack on one transit system can affect human lives, the economy, and confidence in our transit systems. How many times do we have to witness attacks on transit systems in other countries before we secure our transit systems?

This amendment would provide $57 million in direct grants to the Transportation Security Administration to help with that shortfall.

The amendment also would add $15 million to the $10 million already provided in the bill for intercity bus grants. A study conducted by the Mineta Transportation Institute, ``Protecting Public Surface Transportation against Terrorism and Serious Crime,'' found that during the period 1997 through 2000, 54 percent of the worldwide attacks on surface transportation systems were against buses or bus terminals.

Almost 800 million people ride over-the-road buses annually, more than the airlines and Amtrak combined. Intercity buses serve approximately 5,000 communities daily, compared to roughly 500 each for the airlines and Amtrak. Intercity buses serve those who truly need public transportation--rural residents who have no other public transportation alternatives and urban residents who must rely on affordable public transportation.

Given the important role that intercity buses play in the Nation's transportation system and their susceptibility to terrorist attacks, they must be protected.

One of the most glaring funding deficiencies identified in the recent Rudman report is the poor support for first responders. The Rudman report estimated that America will fall approximately $98.4 billion short of meeting critical emergency responder needs in the next 5 years, if current funding levels are maintained. But the legislation before the Senate does not even maintain that current funding level.

While the underlying bill provides first responder funding at a level that is $303 million above the President's request, it is $434 million below the level that the Congress approved for the current fiscal year.

In the nearly 2 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, States and cities have worked to better protect the Nation. They have undertaken critical assessments of vulnerabilities. They have provided specialized training to police officers, firemen, and emergency medical teams. They have attempted to close as many gaps as possible to prevent another terrorist attack. But unfortunately, for many communities, they have had to act without the support of the Federal Government.

A March 2003 analysis by the U.S. Conference of Mayors reports that cities are spending an additional $70 million per week on personnel costs alone, to keep up with security requirements. Mayors and governors have contacted almost every Member of this Congress, if not all, practically begging for additional funds to help defray the huge expenses for homeland security. Their requests come at a time when cities, counties, and states are in the worst financial shape in decades. Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn stated earlier this year that ``We've dug deep into our own pockets. Now we really need the help of the Federal Government.'' This is taken from the Los Angeles Times of February 23. They have come hat in hand for help, and we ought not turn our backs on them.

My amendment adds $500 million to the budget of the Office of Domestic Preparedness for first responders. Specifically, it provides $250 million for

State grants, and $250 million for high threat urban areas, bringing the total for high-threat urban areas to $1 billion. This amendment provides funds to meet the immediate and growing needs that State and local first responders have for funds for equipment, training, homeland security exercises, and planning.

The needs are great.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Fire Protection Association, only 13 percent of fire departments have the equipment and training to handle an incident involving chemical or biological agents.

Forty percent of fire department personnel involved in hazardous material response lack formal training in those duties.

Only 10 percent of fire departments in the United States have the personnel and equipment to respond to a building collapse.

Funds would be used to purchase: Personal protective equipment for first responders--chemical resistant gloves, boots, and undergarments; interoperable communications equipment, portable radios, satellite phones, batteries; detection equipment--equipment, to monitor, detect, sample, identify and quantify chemical, biological, radiological/ nuclear and explosive agents; medical supplies and pharmaceuticals; and, training costs and paying overtime costs associated with attendance at training for emergency responders, emergency managers, and public officials.

My amendment also provides $79.5 million for grants for interoperable communications equipment. This bill currently includes no funds specifically for interoperable communications equipment. This amendment proposes to add $79.5 million, the same amount that was provided in fiscal year 2003.

The initial $79.5 million was a small step in starting the process of integrating and coordinating communications equipment between and among first responders firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical personnel--a deficiency uncovered during the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

Only one-fourth of all fire departments can communicate with all of their rescue partners. The Council on Foreign Relations' June, 2003 study on homeland security needs estimated that the need for interoperable communications equipment funding was $6.8 billion over the next 5 years.

The amendment also provides an additional $150 million for fire grants. The Senate bill includes $750 million for assistance to firefighter grants, roughly the same amount as last year. This amendment would add $150 million for fire grants, which would bring the total to $900 million, the level authorized. Our fire departments need this money.

On average, fire departments across the country have only enough radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift, and breathing apparatuses for only one third.

In the 3 years this program has been in existence, it has become one of the best run programs in the Federal Government. This Senate should fund this program at the authorized level. Our frontline defenders deserve no less.

In October of 2001, the President signed the Patriot Act which called for tripling the number of border patrol agents and Customs and immigration inspectors on the northern border. In May of 2002, the President signed the Enhanced Border Security Act, which authorized significant new investments in border patrol agents and facilities. The goals with regard to Customs inspectors and border facilities cannot be met with the limited funding that was made available for this bill.

The amendment I have offered adds $100 million for improvements to our border ports-of-entry. There are 197 ports-of-entry on our Nation's land borders. Of those, 128 out of 197 are stretched across our 5,525 mile long border with Canada.

The remaining sites are along our highly-trafficked border with Mexico.

Most facilities along the U.S.-Canada border were constructed either as part of the Civilian Conservation Corps program during the Great Depression or in the period between 1950 and 1965. These older facilities are having an increasingly difficult time meeting the energy and power requirements of today's technology.

Along the U.S.-Mexico border, traffic both in people and goods has more than doubled since the last major border infrastructure effort was launched during the Reagan administration.

Trade with Canada has doubled in the last decade, while trade with Mexico has tripled during the same time frame. However, the facilities through which trade must flow have not been expanded or enhanced to keep pace with this traffic.

A Congressionally mandated study called the ``Ports of Entry Infrastructure Assessment Study,'' completed over a year prior to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, identified a growing backlog of infrastructure needs at our Nation's border crossings. It specifically identified 822 infrastructure requirements with an estimated gross cost of $784 million. That report was completed 3 years ago last month--but Congress has yet to seriously begin to address this growing problem.

Consistent with the Enhanced Border Security Act and legislation introduced in this body by a bipartisan group of Senators, this amendment provides $100 million for the new Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to begin addressing this backlog. The funds provided in this amendment could be used to replace the trailer--yes, the trailer--that serves as a border port-of-entry in Easton, ME, or to complete construction of the San Diego fence along the border with Mexico which was authorized by Congress in 1997.

My amendment would also add $138.5 million to hire additional border protection staff to meet the levels authorized in the USA PATRIOT Act.

While funding in the Committee bill will allow the Bureau for Customs and Border Protection, CBP, to succeed in meeting the Congressionally mandated staffing goal for the Border Patrol by the end of this fiscal year, the remaining components of this newly created bureau fall far short of meeting the authorized target.

The PATRIOT Act authorizes a total of 4,845 legacy Customs, Immigration and Agriculture inspection personnel along the northern border by the end of fiscal year 2004. According to the CBP, it will fall far short of that goal. It estimates that it will only have 3,387 inspection personnel at the many port-of-entry and other facilities that stretch across the 5,525 mile northern border with Canada. This is 1,458 personnel short of the authorized and required level.

My amendment would provide the $138.5 million estimated to complete the hiring initiative called for in the PATRIOT Act. The funds would be used to hire an additional 1,458 inspectors to: enhance our ability to conduct inspections of people and goods entering our country to ensure that the people entering the country are authorized to do so; to ensure that the products in the containers are indeed what they are claimed to be and that no dangerous foods, meats, or other products are brought into the country.

Another key area of focus is air cargo security. Most Americans would be stunned to learn that, under the President's budget proposal, each airline passenger will be screened before boarding a plane. Each passenger's baggage will be screened before being loaded on a plane. But commercial cargo on that same plane is left unchecked.

The amendment would add $100 million to the Transportation Security Administration's budget. The additional funds proposed in this amendment would accomplish some key immediate objectives while at the same time laying the ground work for a more comprehensive, multi-year plan. Of this amount, $70 million would be provided to immediately strengthen and expand a number of ongoing TSA activities while the remaining $30 million would be used to increase research, development and testing of screening technologies and other systems.

The $70 million would be used for the following purposes:

To immediately deploy personnel to the Customs and Border Protection's National Targeting Center to develop rules for targeting suspicious packages on passenger aircraft and, as resources are provided, all-cargo aircraft; to provide $20 million for approximately 125 inspectors to be devoted to cargo screening. These personnel would be trained to inspect cargo operations, but in keeping with TSA's Aviation Operations strategy to cross-train its personnel, they would be trained for additional duties in future fiscal years; to provide $15 million to advance

by one-year the TSA plan to expand canine screening teams for limited cargo screening. These activities would be co-located at airports currently using TSA canine for screening of U.S. mail, and would work as a complement to EDS screening at smaller locations; to provide $25 million to fully deploy the ``known shipper'' and profiling programs for cargo being carried on passenger aircraft; to provide $5 million to update the risk and vulnerability assessments for cargo operations; to provide $5 million to launch immediately a pilot program to use explosive detection system, EDS, machines at select locations to screen cargo.

The additional $30 million would be added to the currently budgeted $30 million in TSA's research and development account for air cargo activities, doubling the total amount available for research and development within the air cargo pilot program.

Finally, my amendment provides $80 million to begin addressing the issue of physical security at chemical facilities.

Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution has called the lack of security at U.S. chemical plants a ``ticking time-bomb.'' The General Accounting Office has reported that chemical plants remain vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency, the GAO noted that 123 chemical facilities across the country, if attacked, could inflict serious damage and expose millions of people to toxic chemicals and gases.

There are 3,000 chemical facilities in 49 States that, if attacked, could affect more than 10,000 people each.

The General Accounting Office found that the Federal Government has not comprehensively assessed the chemical industry's vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks, nor has the Federal Government adequately addressed our nuclear vulnerabilities.

The Homeland Security Department is responsible for carrying out comprehensive assessments of the vulnerabilities of the key resources and critical infrastructure of the United States. The President's National Strategy for Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets identifies chemical plants as part of the Nation's critical infrastructure. We are talking about chemical plants.

Unfortunately, this administration has paid lipservice to the issue by saying that the Homeland Security Department will take the lead in managing vulnerability assessments of U.S. chemical facilities, but--b- u-t--no funding is identified in this budget to do just that.

When I asked Secretary Ridge who was responsible to secure these facilities, he testified that he thought that securing chemical facilities was the responsibility of the chemical industry. Frankly, I do not believe our communities would be satisfied to wait for the administration to wake up to this danger.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that it will cost $80 million to conduct vulnerability assessments for chemical plants. This amendment I have offered would provide those resources.

Protecting this Nation's communities is not easy. Protecting this Nations communities is not cheap. And protecting this Nation's communities cannot wait. After 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act, the Maritime Transportation Security Act, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act and the President signed all of these with great fanfare. But the President has done little to fulfill the promise of those laws. Now the Senate has before it the funding legislation that will either fulfill the promise of those acts or continue to leave the Nation vulnerable.

We will hear the same old mantra in opposition to this amendment that money cannot possibly solve the problems facing homeland security. I agree that money cannot solve all of our problems but if we fail to invest sufficient funds, if we fail in the effort to protect our people as best we can, we will never even begin to address them. The gaps in our protections and preparations will continue to grow. We all know these caps exist. And, to be sure, if we know where those gaps are, so do the terrorists know where those gaps are. The American people believe that we here in Washington are taking care of the problem. We must make every effort to close those gaps.

In just a few weeks, America will pause to remember the second anniversary of the moments when the airplanes struck the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania field. We again will remember the mothers and fathers, the brothers and sisters, the firefighters, the police officers, the ambulance drivers. We will remember all of those who lost their lives in those tragic moments. And we should remember those who saved our lives when they sent that plane into the Pennsylvania fields. But as we remember the lives of all these, we owe them more than high-sounding rhetoric. We owe them our best judgment. We owe them rational, responsible action. We owe them a legacy that may truly save lives and prevent another terrorist attack from happening.

I urge all Members to be mindful of their solemn duty to ``provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity'' as we debate this important legislation.

I have gone to considerable lengths to speak concerning my amendment. I urge Senators to support the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that certain Senators have their names added as cosponsors: Senators Lieberman, Cantwell, and Stabenow.

And I welcome the cosponsorship of other Senators--all Senators for that matter. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, Senator Cochran has said there is no end to the list of homeland security needs. He is absolutely correct on that. We could list these security needs from now until Kingdom come. Additional needs can be found. So he is correct. But that does not mean the amendment I have offered is excessive. It does not mean the amendment is excessive. It is targeted to specific activities that Congress has approved.

As I said in the beginning, I named several pieces of legislation that have been approved and signed into law by the President, some of them with great fanfare. So Congress has approved these acts, and the President has signed them into law.

The chairman is correct in stating the progress we have made in hiring Border Patrol agents and inspectors. But that leaves us nearly 1,500 inspectors short of the goal established in the PATRIOT Act. The President signed that law.

Are we serious or are we not serious about meeting the goals set forth in these acts? My amendment would provide the resources to meet the goals that have been set forth in the acts by Congress, the acts that have been signed by the President.

It has also been noted that the bill already includes $150 million for port security grants. But the Coast Guard has estimated that it will cost $1.1 billion in just the first year for the ports to implement the security plan that the Coast Guard issued on July 1, pursuant to the Maritime Transportation Security Act.

Who signed that act? The President signed it. Who issued the regulations? The Coast Guard. Are they serious or not about port security? Is the President serious? The amendment would result in less than $1 billion of total funding. This is less than the Coast Guard's $1.1 billion estimate.

Our distinguished chairman has said he tried to include a base level of funding for grants to equip and train our police, fire, and medical personnel. And I compliment the chairman. He has done a masterful job in writing the provisions in the bill we have before us, a masterful job in distributing the limited amounts that have been provided to the chairman and to the committee for distribution. He has sought to exercise good judgment. He has done so--with the limitations.

The problem is, we do not have enough funds to appropriately allocate to meet the needs of the country. But I do not believe that establishing a base level of funding is enough. When a nonpartisan organization such as the Council on Foreign Relations estimates a $98 billion shortfall over the next 5 years, I simply cannot understand why the committee funding level is enough. It is $434 million below the level available in fiscal year 2003.

With regard to funding chemical facilities security, the chairman notes there is significant funding in the bill for securing critical infrastructure. Yet, nearly 2 years after 9/11, we have no details-- none--from the administration describing how these funds would be used. Secretary Ridge testified to the subcommittee that he believes that securing chemical facilities is the responsibility of the chemical industry.

I do not believe we should continue to wait for the administration to get its act together. We should not allow the budget resolution to artificially limit our ability to address known vulnerabilities in this country. Our citizens do not know about budget resolutions. Our citizens do not know about 302(b) allocations. But they do know they feel vulnerable to terrorist attacks that Secretary Ridge has said are inevitable.

Mr. President, the full committee conducted careful and extensive hearings last year. We had seven Department heads here before the committee. The committee membership was there. The committee hearings were well attended. Senator Stevens and I carefully selected witnesses to appear before those hearings. There were Governors who appeared. There were mayors who appeared. There were members of county commissions who appeared. First responders appeared. Firemen, policemen, health personnel appeared at those hearings. And we have gone over those hearings carefully. The staff has gone over those hearings and painstakingly gleaned from the rich testimony that was submitted by these public officials and public servants. Based on those and subsequent hearings, we decided that these are needs that ought to be addressed. And so I have tried to address these needs in the amendment.

As I say, the amendment adds $1.75 billion. That would fund 42 hours of the Defense Department expenditures. The Defense Department will be spending $1 billion a day on the military--$1 billion a day. They are spending a billion dollars a week in Iraq. Why can't we spend $1.75 billion on the protection of our own people, and our industries here, the protection of our own infrastructure; $1.75 billion to defend the American people, to defend our infrastructure, to defend our ports, to meet the needs of our ports, $1.75 billion? We spend a $1 billion every 24 hours on our defense budget. Yet when it comes to defending this country, defending its infrastructure, then we say it is too much.

I hope Senators will support the motion to waive the point of order. As I close my remarks at this point, I thank the distinguished chairman for his characteristic courtesy and also for his proficiency, his professional handling of this bill and the hearings. He attended the hearings, started them on time, and asked incisive questions. He is always fair to those on the minority side. I have nothing but praise for him. And I thank the cosponsors of the amendment. I must state again, however, that I feel the need for adding appropriations as I am attempting to do here.

A stitch in time saves nine. There is no question in my mind but that we are underfunding the homeland security needs. The Senator has done the best he could with the limited amount of moneys, but there is no good reason why we can't add moneys to this bill. We have to overcome the point of order, of course. There is a 60-vote point of order. That is difficult. But Senators may come to rejoice in having voted for this amendment. Who knows?

I see the distinguished Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I want to thank the very distinguished Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, on the ringing defense of the provisions that are set forth in the amendment that I and several other Senators are cosponsoring. I do not think any Senator could come to this floor with better credentials than those of the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton. She represents the State and the city that was the hardest hit by the terrorist attacks on 9/11. There is only one other State and one other jurisdiction that suffered, but she has made an extraordinary plea coming from the experiences that she has suffered as a result of 9/11.

I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, and she came to my office not once, not twice, not three times but many times in support of the appropriations that the Senate was considering and that the Senate finally enacted. She had a great impact on me as we sat and talked and as I listened to her recount the problems of her city, the problems of New York City and of New York State that resulted from those attacks.

So I thank her for her support of the amendment and say that no one in the Senate could have made a finer statement in support, and no one in the Senate would better understand the needs the American people have as we try to prepare against any future terrorist attacks. I thank her and her staff for the excellent effort they have put into this matter.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

Let me express my appreciation to the Senator for his support of the amendment; more than that, for his steadfast support of the appropriations as we have dealt with this problem time and again on the floor.

The Senator, as is Senator Clinton, is a member of the Armed Services Committee, and his support for this amendment tells a lot. Here is the support of two Senators on the Armed Services Committee. They have been on there quite a while. They have seniority.

The Senator from Rhode Island is an outstanding member of the committee. I deeply appreciate his support of this amendment. I appreciate his patriotism and his eloquence and support of preparing this country against such attacks as it was subjected to on September 11, 2001.

Mr. President, I realize this is not debatable. I shall shortly move to waive the point of order, which will be debatable, not that I intend to take long in debating it. But if the Chair will indulge me momentarily, I want to thank Senator Dodd for his very forceful and cogent and persuasive statement in support of the amendment. He is extremely eloquent. He intends to follow up this statement after a little while with an amendment of his own. But I thank him profusely, without being profuse, for an excellent, excellent statement. I believe his perspicacity will be rewarded in time. I believe it will be. I know the American people are better off for having him in the Senate and for the support he has given to this amendment. I hope the Senate will prevail in support of the statement of the Senator from Connecticut.

Now, Mr. President, 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.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, will the Senator withhold?

Mr. President, while Senator Nelson is coming to the floor, let me just remind my colleagues that I offered an amendment last January to add $5 billion to the omnibus appropriations bill for 2003 for homeland security programs such as port security, nuclear security, airport security, and first responders. The White House labeled the amendment as extraneous spending and the amendment was defeated.

So what happened? Ten weeks later, the White House requested a $4.4 billion supplemental. And a month later, Congress approved $5.1 billion of supplemental homeland security funding. So the White House was a day late and several hundred million dollars short. All the White House accomplished was the delay of critical homeland security investments for 3 months.

That was a repeat of the same old tune we heard from the White House at the time Senator Stevens and I wrote a letter to the White House and to Secretary Ridge urging that there be more money for homeland security. Secretary Ridge responded with a letter to Senator Stevens and to me saying that the White House believed that our amendment was extraneous for the moment and that the White House would be submitting its own request in due time.

So it seems that whenever we have attempted to offer legislation to protect our own country, to protect the people of the country, to protect the infrastructure of the country, to protect the industries of the country from attack, the administration always says it does not need these moneys and that in due time it will submit its own request. And so that seems to be the record today.

Today we are debating an amendment to add just $1.75 billion for homeland security. And the majority, speaking for the administration, says the amendment is too large. Mr. President, history has a way of repeating itself. The Senate should approve this amendment today. The Senate should not wait for the White House to recognize real homeland security vulnerabilities. Delay does not make the Nation more secure.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, and I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, for their excellent statements. I thank them for supporting the amendment. I hope the

Senate will vote to waive the point of order.

I agree this is important and timely funding for one of the many needs facing our Nation as we deal with terrorist threats.

Yes, I understand this project is in development in Nevada. I encourage the Department to consider using a portion of the $13 million appropriated for hazardous materials tracking to help initiate the development of this project.