Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Senate has made progress on this bill. We hope to continue to consider amendments during the remainder of the session today. The leader would like us to complete action on this bill tonight. I hope we can achieve that goal. If we can't, we can go into the next day and try to complete action before noon on Wednesday. But we hope we can complete action today. We urge Senators who have amendments, suggestions for changes in the bill, to come to the floor. We will consider those amendments and deal with them in an orderly way. We hope we can reject most of them. There are some we can agree to.

I see my good friend from Connecticut is on the floor and has an amendment. I am happy to yield the floor.

Mr. President, we appreciate very much the offering of the amendment by the Senator from Connecticut. We oppose the amendment, and I have some very persuasive comments I am going to make on that subject. But before I proceed to do so, the Senator from New York has indicated an interest in offering an amendment and describing it to the Senate. I am happy to withhold my discussion of the Dodd amendment.

I ask unanimous consent, if the Senator has no objection, to set aside his amendment temporarily so the Senator from New York can offer her amendment.

Mr. President, the bill we presented to the committee-- and the committee approved it and referred it to the Senate for its consideration--has been very carefully crafted, analyzing the needs of the Department. We conducted a lot of hearings. We have been in consultation with the administration, the officials at the Department who are administering these programs, trying to make sure that, across the board, we are utilizing the funds that are available to us to get the maximum amount of benefit, in the most efficient way possible, to identify the critical and emergency needs we have, and to try to address those in a way that helps guarantee the safety and security of our homeland.

This is an important and very challenging task for the Senate. We appreciate the fact there are going to be differences of opinion and there are going to be suggestions made to increase this account or that account, reducing the funding for another, and that is what the Senator has proposed: that we add money for firefighter grants; that we take away money from other accounts in the bill, administration accounts. It is an easy vote to add money for a popular program. That is the easiest thing that we can do as a Representative or a Senator.

I am not suggesting the amendment is offered just because it calls for an easy vote, because this amendment suggests not only adding money for a popular program, but it also offsets by cutting funds for some that may not be as popular or as well known or understood as well as the firefighter program.

We all know firefighters. We know what they do. We know how heroically they performed on 9/11, and how much we depend on them every day. So we want to be sure they are well funded, that they have the training they need and the equipment they need, so we want to be generous.

That is why I point out at the outset that Senator Frist and Senator Byrd, the former chairman of the full committee, the ranking Democrat on this subcommittee, and I joined in offering an amendment early in the consideration of this bill to increase firefighter assistance to $750 million. The bill now contains the level of funding that was included in last year's appropriations act for these purposes.

If you look at the history of funding of these programs, the firefighter assistance grants alone have received over $2.1 billion in funding since fiscal year 2002.

This does not reflect the resources that have been made available for fire departments through the basic State grant program or from State and local government support. They have, after all, the initial responsibility for these activities.

The amendment suggests offsets that we cannot afford to take. We are going to put at risk the Department of Homeland Security's initiatives in many areas if these offsets are approved in this amendment. For example, the suggestion of the Senator from Connecticut would reduce the Under Secretary for Management by $70 million, the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate's account by $20 million, and the Science and Technology Directorate's account by $10 million.

Buffer zone protection plans for critical infrastructure cannot be completed if the offset, cutting funds for the Infrastructure Protection Directorate, is approved. If the amendment is adopted, funding the Homeland Security Operations Center, which serves as the nerve center for sharing information across all levels of Government and the private sector, will be decimated.

In addition, the Homeland Security Information Network will not be able to provide threat information to State and local government entities as they are expected to do without the funds that are cut out of the bill by the Dodd amendment.

The management administration account, which is in the Science and Technology Directorate, provides the front line workers of the Directorate the funds for grants to university-based research facilities where many of the new technologies are being developed and designed, to more fully protect the safety and security of our homeland.

An immediate freeze is called for in all Federal hiring. The cut would decrease management administration accounts below last year's level, significantly and adversely affecting the number of employees in the Science and Technology Directorate.

The cut in funding could require a layoff of workers due to the reconfiguration and prioritization that is called for at that Directorate.

I am hopeful the Senate will carefully review the effect of this amendment, the damage that it would do to programs that are already underway that have to do with threat vulnerability programs that we cannot afford to abandon at this point. We want to work with the firefighter programs and make sure the grant programs are continued. They are generously funded in this bill, as I have pointed out, and they have been. We will continue to defend them, and we will work in conference to try to accommodate some of the concerns the Senator has mentioned in his excellent remarks.

For these and other reasons which I may state before we actually get to a vote on this amendment, I urge the Senate to vote against and reject the amendment proposed by Senator Dodd.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I think we have an opportunity for Senators to discuss these amendments out of order, if they would like. I don't think there would be any objection made to that.

Mr. President, knowing that the Senator from New York wishes to offer an amendment, I am not going to talk long. But I want to make one observation. We ought not to be getting into the business in the Senate of deciding for States and localities how they spend this grant money or how they spend the SAFER Act money. We need to have the flexibility to make those decisions with State and local governments. If we start telling a fire department they have to buy equipment with this amount of money, that they have to train people with this other amount of money, they have to equip trucks and vehicles with this amount, this amount is for that or the other, we are making a big mistake.

We are not the managers of these departments. We are not in the position to make the best decisions about how to efficiently use funds from Washington that will help our communities be safer and improve the quality of service provided by firefighters, law enforcement personnel, emergency management workers, or the rest. That is why the grant programs are broad and general. The States develop the plans for using the funds available to them from the Department of Homeland Security in many of these areas. It is the States and localities we ought to depend on to make the best decisions.

If we did what the Senator from Connecticut is suggesting we do, we would get into the business of making these departments allocate funds for one category or one specific activity or the other, and that is a big mistake. Adopting this amendment flies right in the face of the administrative policies that this Department is trying to develop and implement, and it is working to make our communities safer because we are leaving the decisions to those who are in the best position to know what is needed in their communities.

Do the firefighters need training in a certain area or another? I don't know the answer to that, if it applies to a fire department in my State. But the chief may know. He ought to know. He is in a better position to make the recommendations to the State officials as to what their needs are.

These people are applying for these funds. They are having to set out how they propose to use them. At other levels of administration, the decision is made to assign priorities and which ones have a higher priority than another.

That ought not to be made on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It is a mistake to get into the details as suggested by this amendment and take money away from activities that are ongoing, that are planned for this year, and then cut the funding for it. That is just going to make it more and more difficult to have a coherent, balanced approach to homeland security.

We hope the Senate will reject the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut.

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

Mr. President, I am sure Senators are aware that the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Senate has jurisdiction over the legislative authority, the law, creating the Department of Homeland Security. In that, legislation grant programs are described, allocation formulas are contained, that give guidance to the distribution of Federal funds to States and localities for various programs.

The Senator from New York is suggesting, by her first amendment, that the appropriations bill that is before the Senate should be amended to change the way the grants are being given to States and localities. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee has already addressed this issue. Hearings have been held. A review and consideration of various changes in the allocation process have all been reviewed. And the committee has acted.

They have reported out of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee S. 1245. That is a Senate bill called the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act. The act, as reported by the committee, will modify the formula for distributing domestic preparedness grants.

If the Senate wants to take action as suggested by the Senator from New York, it can adopt that bill or amend it as may be suggested by the Senator from New York. That is the appropriate vehicle for revising first responder grant funding, not this appropriations bill. We are bound by the law. We are funding the programs authorized by the law. We are giving funds according to the priorities of that law. Every time we have an annual appropriations bill, we cannot change the way those formulas are written. That would be bad policy, bad practice, and it should not be followed in this instance on this issue.

Every State in the Nation is entitled to a base level of Federal support for homeland security needs. A State's size or population does not necessarily reflect the level of danger to a State's population or to a city's population. Each State has the responsibility to make decisions that are designed to protect the property and the lives of its citizens, and they must allocate State resources--and local resources may be allocated as well--to train, equip, and maintain qualified first responders for those purposes.

I believe the committee has done a very good job of analyzing and recognizing the needs of our larger and most threatened cities. In the fiscal year 2003 appropriations and the wartime supplemental, $850 million was set aside for high-threat urban discretionary grants. In fiscal year 2004, in the appropriations bill, a further $725 million was set aside for these high-threat urban areas. The bill now before the Senate contains $875 million dedicated to high-threat urban discretionary grants. Taken together, this is over $2.4 billion just for the urban areas of our country. This is on top of the basic grant each State receives.

The Department of Homeland Security has developed a model using classified information to allocate resources to major urban areas based on a combination of current threat estimates, critical assets within the urban area, as well as population density. The formula uses a combination of these factors to produce proportional resource allocations. Of the high-threat urban grant funding for fiscal year 2004, over $79 million has gone to communities in New York State. Since the inception of the Urban Area Security Initiative, over $316 million has been made available to cities in New York. These funds are in addition to the dollars that were received by the State of New York through the basic State grants.

In fiscal year 2004, more than $141 million in discretionary high- threat funding has been allocated to communities in California. Since the inception of the Urban Area Security Initiative, more than $247 million has been made available to the State of California. So the needs of our urban areas and the States with high population centers are already being addressed. But so, too, are those in other States of our great Nation.

We should not come in on this bill today with this amendment and change the formula for the basic State grant program. That debate should occur when the Senate considers the Governmental Affairs Committee bill, S. 1245, which is now on the calendar of the Senate.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the first amendment of the Senator from New York.

The second amendment the Senator has offered deals with Urban Area Security Initiative funding and suggests to the Senate that the amount available in the bill should be increased. In this bill, as in last year's appropriation, we have continued to provide funds specifically for the largest metropolitan areas that face the most risk. The Urban Area Security Initiative grant fund is distributed at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. I have mentioned that. It is based on current threat information and other factors. With the resources available, the bill makes the best use of these limited resources.

Let me make that point again. These are limited resources. This committee has been allocated a certain amount of money, around $32 billion, to provide funding for this next fiscal year for activities under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies that are funded in this bill. With those limitations, choices have to be made. It would be good to be able to increase funding for all of the programs in this bill. They are all worthwhile programs or they would not be in the bill. They are all important activities. But at some point the committee has to make a decision. It has to say: This is the amount that is allocated for this next fiscal year for this particular account or program.

This bill includes $875 million for the Urban Area Security Initiative. Since fiscal year 2003, including the amount provided here, over $2.4 billion will have been made available for the Urban Area Security Initiative. The Senator's amendment would add an additional $625 million, almost doubling the Urban Area Security Initiative, to this grant program.

Because of the reasons I have cited, at the appropriate time, I will suggest that a point of order should lie against this amendment.

Next let me read another provision of the committee report which I think will explain why it is important for us to reject this amendment:

The Committee is concerned with the administration of the

funds available to assist the communities most in danger in

the United States. The continued expansion of the cities

eligible for this funding has the impact of diluting the

resources that have been made available, shortchanging those

communities with the most serious quantifiable threat. The

Committee believes the Department achieved a more optimal use

of the funds in fiscal year 2003. Further, the Committee

believes the Department's practice over the past two fiscal

years, to allocate the full amount appropriated for the

program at one time near the beginning of the year, leaves

the Department with little ability to respond to new or

updated intelligence or recent terrorist threats.

Consequently, the Committee recommends that at least 10

percent of the funds appropriated for the program be reserved

to meet any needs over the course of the fiscal year

warranted by more current threat information and

intelligence. Any reserve funds remaining at the beginning of

the last quarter of the fiscal year shall be released to

fiscal year 2005 grant recipients as determined by the

Secretary.

It is my hope that the Senate will reject both of the amendments offered by the Senator from New York.

I will not object. I have a unanimous consent request to make.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:20 today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Mikulski amendment No. 3624, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote; provided further that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I have no objection.

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

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

Mr. President, at the appropriate time it will be my intention to make the point of order against the amendment, in that it violates the Budget Act because it provides for the appropriation of additional funds above the allocation of the amount available to this subcommittee and there is no offset provided in the amendment. So for the information of Senators, that is the intention of the managers of the bill.

Under the previous order, as I understand it, a vote is scheduled to occur at 2:20. Is that the order?

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, the bill provides adequate funds-- generous funding--for this program.

I make a point of order under section 302(f) that the amendment exceeds the subcommittee's allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget Act.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to waive.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the point of order was sustained.

Mr. President, we are at a point now where we are hopeful we can begin disposing of amendments that have previously been offered and on which debate has occurred. They have been set aside so Senators can offer amendments on other subjects. We have at this time nine amendments that are in that situation: amendments offered by Senators Nelson, Corzine, Kennedy, Dayton, Dodd, Clinton, and one by Clinton and Schumer.

We are hopeful we can reach some understanding about a time to begin voting on these amendments. We do know there are a couple meetings that require Senators' attendance off the floor at this time, and that might be the situation until about 3:30. But I am hopeful the leaders on the other side

can consider entering into an understanding or an agreement that we will begin voting on these amendments at 3:30. So I say that for the information of Senators.

There is a markup session going on by the Senate Appropriations Committee. That may start at 3 o'clock. That is going to require the attendance of a good number of Senators. So for the information of Senators, we are hopeful we can begin a series of votes at about 3:30, dispose of the pending amendments, and then proceed to consider other amendments that Senators may wish to offer.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Florida.

Mr. President, I appreciate the inquiry of the Senator from Florida. It is my understanding that the Department of Agriculture has existing authority under current law to provide assistance for agricultural purposes in areas where people have suffered disasters. It provides opportunities for haying and grazing on conservation lands. There are a wide range of emergency activities that can be undertaken under existing law.

When we reach a point at which there is a determination of exact dollar amounts of damage incurred by citrus growers or others who have been hurt by the storms in Florida, that may be a possible reason for an additional supplemental to be submitted whose benefits were not described in the submission that was received today. This is considered an emergency for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and others who are on the frontline of recovery, providing shelter, providing food, emergency items to protect life, debris removal, particularly areas where the debris poses a danger to life and limb.

This is the kind of supplemental, as I understand it, the President has submitted. We hope to be able to approve that and call it up. The Appropriations Committee is meeting this afternoon. Senator Stevens, chairman of the committee, wants to take action on it as soon as possible. The House has to act on it as well. It may very well be that we will have a vehicle on which to go to conference with the House this week.

I am hopeful we can keep the President's request clean and approve the request, get the money to the agencies that need the funds, and look to these other issues as they mature in time, in the sense that there has been time to assess the damages and we know what they are and who is entitled to the benefits and what kind of benefits there are in agriculture.

But there is no doubt in my mind there will be a need for sensitive and generous assistance for agricultural producers which do not have any other benefits. We do have crop insurance. There are other things available to farmers under current law, and they will be able to receive these and be provided with deserved and well-needed benefits.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. President, my advice to all Senators, including my good friend from Florida, is to try to work with the Appropriations Committee leadership. Senator Stevens is chairing a meeting marking up individual appropriations bills this afternoon. The committee will be considering the request for supplemental appropriations submitted by the President that we just talked about. At that time, when we are considering the supplemental for disaster assistance, would be the time, in my view, when we could consider other hurricane damage that the Senator is discussing now. In my mind that would be a more appropriate vehicle for the Senators who are talking about midwestern agricultural needs as well.

I hope this annual appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security won't get held up with a debate over disaster assistance because of drought or other problems in other parts of the country. It is hard to say yes, let's have some funds included in the bill for those purposes, and then say no to those in our part of the country where we do know the needs are real. They are just as expensive, maybe much more so in reality, than the Midwestern problems.

I am hopeful that we can protect the integrity of the appropriations process and the integrity of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. Let's move this to completion, go to conference with the House, and, in an orderly, coherent way, fund the needs of the Department of Homeland Security to protect us from terrorist threats, other natural disasters such as the ones that are being addressed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Then in a separate action, let's consider disaster assistance for hurricane victims and drought victims and others in agriculture who have otherwise suffered serious losses this year.

I don't think that is a decision that has been made.

My expectation is that the committee leadership, in consultation with the leaders of the Senate, will make that decision at a later time. Today they are trying to mark up individual appropriations bills, and in due course they will take up the supplemental as well.

It may have been made and I just haven't heard about it. The Senator from Florida may be more up to date than I am. But I knew it was an option that was being considered and being discussed. I was not aware that the decision had definitely been made to do that.

Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely correct. It poses a real danger, not only to the people in that area but also to property. It is clear that the disaster relief fund of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which we replenished just a few days ago to the tune of $2 billion, could run out of money again. I know the tendencies of this Congress to be that where there are needs like that, we will act to address them. At a time when that relief fund or any other account is depleted and hurricane victims need the attention of these agencies and the benefits to which they are entitled, we will act. I believe we will act promptly and with dispatch and with generosity to the fullest extent allowed under the law.

It is one of the agencies under the Department of Homeland Security, and it is covered in this annual appropriations bill.

The Senator makes a point we should consider. I agree with that. It is awfully difficult for us to know the future or to be able to predict it and the needs of every agency of the Government, even FEMA. But we do the best we can and we will continue to work hard. Any advice or suggestions the Senators might have for the appropriate level of funding on an annual basis would be welcome.

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

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

Mr. President, we are at a point now where we can announce to Senators our intention to proceed to votes on some of the amendments that are pending now. The amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, which he has modified, would be the first amendment we would consider. It would be the intention of this manager to move to table the Corzine amendment and get the yeas and nays, and then have a similar motion against the Dayton amendment No. 3629 and the Clinton/ Schumer amendment No. 3632. We are advised that the Appropriations Committee is in meeting now and members may not be available until close to 4, but we could begin these votes at 3:45.

The distinguished assistant leader has assured us that is an agreement that is OK with the Democratic side of the aisle, and with that understanding, I will propound this unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that at 3:45 p.m. today, the Senate vote in relation to the following amendments in the order mentioned: Corzine No. 3619, as modified; Dayton No. 3629; Clinton No. 3632. I further ask unanimous consent that no amendments be in order to the amendments prior to those votes and that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to each of the votes, and finally that the second and third votes in the series be limited to 10 minutes each.

I thank the distinguished leader and I thank all Senators for that agreement.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator very much for his suggestions. He is absolutely right. We do intend to press on and try to complete action on this bill tonight. We would appreciate the cooperation of all Senators in that regard. We are going to try to get to the point where we can announce that we are definitely going to finish the bill tonight. That is our intention. We hope we can move forward with dispatch and determination to achieve that goal. We thank the distinguished Senator for his good assistance in that regard.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Has a motion to table the Corzine amendment been made?

Mr. President, the committee has recommended in this bill $193,673,000 for protective action activities, for developing and implementing protective programs for the Nation's critical infrastructures, including chemical facilities, Federal, State and local, and private sector activities and programs and best practices.

Nationwide, we have seen 2,040 chemical facilities complete vulnerability

assessments as developed by Sandia National Laboratories and the Center for Chemical Process Safety. The Department of Homeland Security has made considerable progress in increasing the security of chemical facilities across the country. Site visits are conducted at chemical facilities as part of a buffer zone protection plan. These plans reduce specific vulnerabilities and build a general protection capacity of communities. As part of the protective buffer zone effort, the protective security division has developed plans to install cameras to detect and deter surveillance and other threatening activities.

The Department has provided protective measures and risk management efforts on the sites of greatest concern. We are confident these are working to improve the safety and security of chemical facilities.

We urge the Senate to support the committee and vote to approve the motion to table the Corzine amendment.

Mr. President, I move to table the Corzine amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota has offered an amendment dealing with the Federal protective service. It is my intention as a manager of the bill to urge my colleagues to vote against it. First, it is the intention of the manager to move to table this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays, and I do so now.

Mr. President, this amendment seeks to define the responsibilities of the Federal Protective Service to negotiate employment contracts with other agencies or individuals who seek to work for the Federal Protective Service. This is actually a Department of Labor Fair Labor Standards Act issue. It is not a Homeland Security issue. It should not be offered as an amendment to this bill but, rather, the issue should be presented to the Department of Labor which is responsible for overseeing employee and employer relationships.

This amendment would have a very serious adverse effect on the Federal Protective Service's ability to carry out protective services and ensure the security of Federal buildings throughout the country. It could bring the efforts to a standstill.

I move to table the amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, this is the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New York.

Mr. President, I appreciate very much the suggestion of the Senator from New York. The fact is, we have already identified an appropriate amount of funding for this area of concern in the bill. The committee has reviewed the request very carefully. Because the committee has exhausted its allocation of funds available to it under the allocation of the full committee on appropriations, we have identified what we think is an appropriate amount of funding for this area of concern and activity of the Department of Homeland Security. I make a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

Mr. President, we reviewed the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Nevada. We think it should be accepted by the Senate, so we hope it will be adopted on a voice vote.

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

Mr. President, we thank the Senator from Connecticut for his good advice and suggestions in the handling of this bill. We recommend we proceed to a voice vote on his amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3639

Mr. President, we understand the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, is a cosponsor of the amendment. We appreciate Senator Bingaman's bringing this issue to the attention of the Senate. We recommend that we proceed to a voice vote on the Senator's amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3636

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

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I am happy to express my support for the adoption of this amendment on a voice vote at the conclusion of the remarks of Senators

from Delaware and California or any other Senators who would like to speak.

Mr. President, that would be my suggestion. If the Senator will yield, we will adopt the amendment on a voice vote at the conclusion of the remarks of Senators who are interested.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, I do not know if there are other Senators who wish to continue to debate. If there are, this would be a good time to do it.

I know some Senators who are interested in this issue are in discussions off the Senate floor, and pending completion of those, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to advise the Senate that we have been able to reach agreement to recommend approval of several amendments offered by Senators on both sides of the aisle. I am prepared to propound a unanimous consent request.

Amendments Nos. 3589, 3603, 3611, 3633, 3634, 3635, 3638, 3640, 3642,

and 3645, en bloc

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following amendments: No. 3589 proposed by Mr. Allard; No. 3611 proposed by Ms. Mikulski; No. 3634 proposed by Mrs. Boxer; No. 3603 proposed by Ms. Landrieu; No. 3640 proposed by Mrs. Boxer; No. 3642 proposed by Mrs. Boxer; No. 3633 proposed by Mr. Reed of Rhode Island; No. 3638 proposed by Mr. Hatch; No. 3635 proposed by Mr. Feingold; and No. 3645 proposed by Mrs. Dole.

I understand these amendments are cleared on both sides of the aisle, and I urge that they be adopted en bloc.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I was going to respond to the Senator's comments and his amendment which would add funding to this bill in the amount of $470 million for the Department of Homeland Security.

I don't know at what point we want to consider the fact that, because of the way it is drafted, the impact the amendment would have on future appropriations for fiscal year 2006 would actually, according to the Budget Committee staff and chairman, violate the Budget Act and that a point of order would lie against this amendment.

Reluctantly and with great respect for my friend from West Virginia, I am constrained to make that point of order. Rather than going through all the talking points that my staff has prepared on the subject of the individual amounts to be added by the amendment and the offsets that are identified, which is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, I am constrained to make a point of order.

I am happy to reserve that right and yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are at a point now where I think we can proceed to dispose of an earlier amendment that was offered. If there is no objection to setting aside the pending Byrd amendment for that purpose, I ask unanimous consent that the Byrd amendment be set aside and that we proceed to a voice vote on the Baucus amendment.

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

Mr. President, the Byrd amendment has been presented and discussed by the Senator from West Virginia, the Senator from Michigan, and the Senator from New Mexico. Compelling arguments have been made for the additional funds that would be made available to the Department of Homeland Security under this amendment. The difficulty, however, is that the amendment would provide appropriations that are not consistent with the Budget Act. Section 501 of H. Con. Res. 95, the fiscal year 2004 concurrent resolution on the budget, limits the amount and type of advance appropriations which may be provided for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. The pending amendment would provide advance appropriations for fiscal year 2006 which are not on the list of programs, projects, activities, or accounts identified in the joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying the budget resolution.

Thus, I raise a point of order pursuant to section 501(b) of H. Con. Res. 95, the 108th Congress, against the pending amendment.

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

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to permit the Senator from New York to offer an amendment.

Mr. President, we are happy this has been resolved. I think it improves the bill. We are ready to accept the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

Regular order.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we are at a point now where we can proceed with two or three other amendments that may require votes and then we expect to have a vote on final passage. We would like to get an agreement that these are the amendments which will be voted on and that we will have votes in sequence on those amendments and final passage of the bill. I hope my friend from Nevada will consider that.

The Senator from Florida wants to be heard.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we are at a point where we can advise Senators of amendments that will now be presented to the Senate for votes. We hope we can get this unanimous consent agreement adopted so we will have an orderly process to follow.

I ask unanimous consent that other than any amendments cleared by both managers, the only remaining amendments be the following and that there be no second degrees in order to the listed amendments prior to votes in relation to those amendments: the pending Kennedy amendment for 5 minutes equally divided; the Schumer amendment on rail safety with 10 minutes equally divided; the Schumer amendment on immigration with 10 minutes equally divided; and the Clinton amendment, No. 3631, with 10 minutes equally divided--and I am sure the Senator from Florida will call up his amendment on funds for the Red Cross, and we will adopt that on a voice vote--further, that any other pending amendments be withdrawn, and following disposition of the above-listed amendments, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to passage as under the order.

I thank all Senators.

Mr. President, this amendment would add $350 million to the bill for rail and security transit grants. A previously adopted amendment has already added $128 million to the bill for this purpose.

The amendment will cause the bill to exceed the committee's 302(b) allocation; therefore, I make a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these votes be stacked that are in order: the two Schumer amendments, the Clinton amendment, the vote on final passage, and any vote in relation to the Kennedy amendment as well--that they be stacked so we can then proceed with debate on the second Schumer amendment or the Clinton amendment and dispose of the discussion, and then we will have a vote on all of those issues at the same time.

Mr. President, this amendment would add to the bill $350 million for components of the United States Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology system, known as US VISIT. We have included the amount requested by the administration in this bill for the US VISIT system in the amount of $340 million. So

the Senator's amendment would double the amount that is already included in the bill. The amendment will cause the bill to exceed the committee's 302(b) allocation. Therefore, I make a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

Mr. President, under the order previously entered, there is an opportunity for consideration of a pending Kennedy amendment or the offering of amendment No. 3631 by Senator Clinton.

Mr. President, the funds allocated for this program in this bill are done on a formula basis under the provisions of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held hearings on this issue and has reported out a bill, S. 1245, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act, to deal with domestic preparedness grants and how they are distributed. That is the legislation that is the appropriate vehicle for further debate and amendments if Senators want to offer amendments dealing with the formula for distributing State and local first responder grant funding.

This should not be done on an appropriation bill, on this bill, as the Senator seeks to do with her amendment. Therefore, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I think we are at a point now where the Senator from Massachusetts has an amendment, which is the only one left under the agreed-upon process for finalizing the handling of the bill.

Mr. President, let me make a couple points I think are important before we vote on this amendment. This is a report--the subject of this amendment by Senator Kennedy--that was prepared at the President's request to advise him on intelligence issues. The report constitutes privileged advice to the President from a confidential adviser.

In order to protect the ability of not only this President but future Presidents in their ability to receive advice as a matter of separation of powers, recognized previously by the courts, Presidents of both parties have long declined to turn over to Congress privileged advice that is prepared for them at their request. For this same reason, the President does not ask Members of Congress to turn over advisory information prepared for us by our staff members. We think this is a tradition that should be honored in this case.

I am prepared to move to table the amendment if no other Senator wants to be recognized. If others want to speak on the issue, I am happy to yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, my understanding of the order is another vote will occur on an amendment without intervening debate under the order?

This vote will be a 10-minute vote. Would the Chair state the question before the Senate?

I am happy to yield.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the point of order was sustained, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 3631

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, under the previous order, the amendment of the Senator from Florida adding funds for the Red Cross is the pending business, which should be adopted by voice vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following amendments: amendment No. 3614 proposed by Ms. Collins and Mr. Pryor; amendment No. 3647 proposed by Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Craig, Mr. Levin, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Rockefeller; amendment No. 3648 proposed by Mr. Shelby; amendment No. 3643 proposed by Mr. Roberts; amendment No. 3646 proposed by Mr. Talent and Mr. Bond; and amendment No. 3644 proposed by Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Stevens.

These amendments have been agreed to on both sides of the aisle, and I ask they be adopted en bloc.

Mr. President, I send three amendments to the desk: one on behalf of Senators Durbin and Akaka; one on behalf of Senator Domenici; and one on behalf of Senator Talent. I understand these amendments have been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask unanimous consent that they be adopted en bloc.

Mr. President, notwithstanding the adoption of amendment No. 3589, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified with the following change: On line 7 of the amendment, insert ``and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate'' after ``Governmental Affairs.''

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the three amendments adopted previously were agreed to.

I will be happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

dugway proving ground's first responder classes

I thank my colleague for his kind words. Identifying the very best in first responder training programs is a priority for the subcommittee. Accordingly, the subcommittee has created a system in which the Department of Homeland Security distributes funding through a competitive grant program. I appreciate the Senator's comments on the quality of classes conducted at Dugway Proving Ground. I look forward to hearing about the program's continued progress in the future.

Mr. President, the Senator from Hawaii is correct. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this point. It is not the intent of the Appropriations Committee to limit the recipients of port security grants to only UASI cities but rather to maintain the distribution criteria utilized in the fiscal year 2003 wartime supplemental.

I yield to the senior Senator from Hawaii.

I appreciate the Senators' comments regarding the disaster situation in Delaware last September. There are two programs at the Federal Emergency Management Agency to address a portion of this problem. The first program is the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program which is available to States such as the Senators' which have been declared disaster areas by the President. I am informed by FEMA that funds are available to assist the Glenville community with home buyouts. The other program available to the State is the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program which is a Federal grant program which accepts competitive applications. However, I understand that these programs do not provide the resources to fully buy out the Glenville community at one time.

I thank the Senators from Delaware for this discussion and assure them that I will continue to assist them in their effort to work with FEMA on additional Federal funding.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, September 14, 2004, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Implementing the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and

Medicare Advantage Program: Perspectives on the Proposed Rules.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to continue its markup on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Agenda

I. Nominations

Claude A. Allen, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; David E. Nahmias, of Georgia, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia; Ricardo H. Hinojosa, to be Chair of the United States Sentencing Commission; Michael O'Neill, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission; Ruben Castillo, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission; William Sanchez, to be Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practice; Richard B. Roper III, of Texas, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas for the term of four years.

II. Legislation

S. 1635, L-1 Visa (Intracompany Transferee) Reform Act of 2003, Chambliss;

S. 1700, Advancing Justice through DNA Technology Act of 2003, Hatch, Biden, Specter, Leahy, DeWine, Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, Kohl, Edwards;

S. 2396, Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2004, Hatch, Leahy, Chambliss, Durbin, Schumer;

H.R. 1417, To amend title 17, United States Code, to replace copyright arbitration royalty panels with Copyright Royalty Judges Act of 2003, Smith-TX, Berman-CA, Conyers-MI;

S. 2204, A bill to provide criminal penalties for false information and hoaxes relating to terrorism Act of 2004, Hatch, Schumer, Cornyn, Feinstein, DeWine;

S. 1860, A bill to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy Act of 2003, Hatch, Biden, Grassley;

S. 2195, A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify the definition of anabolic steroids and to provide for research and education activities relating to steroids and steroid precursors Act of 2004, Biden, Hatch, Grassley, Feinstein;

S.J. Res. 23, A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing for the event that one- fourth of the members of either the House of Representatives or the Senate are killed or incapacitated Act of 2003, Cornyn, Chambliss.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 14, 2004 at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on the nomination of Porter J. Gross to be Director of Central Intelligence.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Tuesday, September 14, 2004 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 to conduct a hearing on ``Hospital Group Purchasing: How To Maintain Innovation and Cost Savings'', at 2:00 p.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness List:

Dr. Robert Betz, President and CEO, Health Industry Group Purchasing Association, Arlington, VA.

Joe E. Kiani, President and CEP, Masimo Corporation, Irvine, CA.

David Balto, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries and Coast Guard be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 14, 2004, at 8:30 a.m. on Magnuson/Stevens Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``The 9/11 Commission Human Capital Recommendations: A Critical Element of Reform.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Land and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 14 at 2:30 p.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2532, to establish wilderness areas, promote conservation, improve public land, and provide for the high quality development in Lincoln County, NV, and for other purposes; S. 2723, to designate certain land in the State of Oregon as wilderness, and for other purposes; and S. 2709, to provide for the reforestation of appropriate forest cover on forest land derived from the public domain, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, we appreciate very much the Senator's amendment and discussion of the Scowcroft Commission report and whether the contents of that report should be declassified. That is, as I understand it, the purpose of the amendment, to make that information public.

What I hope we can do in the consideration of this appropriations bill is to keep our attention focused on the funding of the Department of Homeland Security activities. That is the purpose of this appropriations bill. We have worked very hard with colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to identify priorities. We fully considered the President's budget request on issues surrounding funding levels. We know we do not have unlimited budget authority. We are limited by an allocation from the full Committee on Appropriations in the Senate.

I hope we defer this issue to the consideration of the authorizing committee. The Intelligence Committee has this issue under review. As a matter of fact, this issue has already been raised, as I understand it, in hearings that are being held in consideration of the so-called 9/11 Commission recommendations. We have had that report before the Senate. There are a number of other committees looking into these issues.

But the Appropriations Committee is trying to get funds approved by the Congress to fund the Department of Homeland Security needs for this next fiscal year beginning October 1.

I don't know whether the Senator wants a vote on his amendment, or maybe at the appropriate time after other Senators have had an opportunity to discuss their views, if they so choose, we could move to table the amendment. That would be my suggestion, that we remove that amendment from this bill and let it be handled by some other committee.

I am sympathetic with the concerns the Senator has expressed, but I really do not think we ought to convert the consideration of an appropriations bill into consideration of whether to declassify or not the Scowcroft Commission report. That is my reaction to the amendment. I hope the Senate will consider our views.

I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his further comments to the Senate.

I also at this time would like to propound a unanimous consent request which I understand has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. The distinguished leader from Nevada is here on the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the vote in relation to the Schumer amendment this evening, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Lautenberg amendment No. 3617; provided further that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to each vote.

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

Mr. President, at 5:30, we are going to be voting in the Senate on a motion to table the Schumer amendment. The Senator described his amendment recently and talked about the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has not done anything, essentially, to protect against the explosives or other dangers occurring when trucks with hazardous material are driven throughout the country, and that an additional $70 million, I think, is the total amount of new money to be added to this bill for this purpose.

It is described in the Senator's amendment as a tracking system for hazardous material trucks, hazmat trucks, and a background check system for commercial drivers' licenses.

I am suggesting to the Senate that this is an additional $70 million that cannot be efficiently used for this purpose in 1 fiscal year, and I am going to tell you why.

The Appropriations Committee has already provided funding for a number of different programs designed to accomplish the goals that the Senator has described in his comments about and his description of his amendment when he previously offered it.

Last year, in fiscal year 2004, Congress appropriated $9.4 million for an effort to develop a high-explosive countermeasure system in the Science and Technology Directorate. Research is being undertaken and a program that will follow on is funded at $33.590 million to provide technologies and programs that would interdict explosive attacks against buildings from all modes of transportation, including trucking. It is also designed to protect critical infrastructure and the Nation's civilian population. This is an increase of $23.89 million from the budget request submitted by the administration.

We have tried to communicate with the Transportation Security Administration and other agencies of the Department of Homeland Security to see what funds could be utilized to help make this the most sophisticated and effective system available to the American public in protecting buildings, protecting civilian populations, protecting the trucking systems and the infrastructure of our country against problems of vehicle bombs, problems of hazardous materials being confiscated and converted into explosives to damage infrastructure: highways, tunnels, bridges, buildings, and the like.

So the Homeland Security Advanced Research Project Agency is issuing a broad agency announcement for systems for vehicle bomb detection using optical and nuclear thermal neutron analysis. The Science and Technology Directorate is piloting several sites using different means for detecting vehicle bombs at checkpoints. There are other initiatives to deny terrorists the use of commercial explosives and materials for making such bombs.

So across the board, what I am saying, there is a broad indepth, comprehensive effort underway and using a variety of technologies and programs that seek to achieve, and will achieve, the goal suggested by the Senator from New York.

We do not need to adopt this amendment to accomplish the goal he talks about that we need to pursue. We are doing what the Senator has suggested should be done.

There is a Hazardous Material Shipper Training Program in place for drivers and others who are involved as employees in that industry, providing information about security requirements and responsibilities of those engaged in the trucking industry. It is promoting security awareness for each mode of transportation, not just truckers but other shippers as well.

Funds have been provided in the 2004 appropriations bill to test certain technologies, new technologies to track high-risk trucks on the Nation's highways. The Senator said there is no program such as that in place. Programs are being tested to be implemented. We want to be sure the Transportation Security Administration has the ability to track vehicles throughout the entire country, in Alaska and Hawaii as well, to identify the best practices and the standards and regulations that ought to be implemented and enforced by Federal, State, local, and industry stakeholders as well.

Congress has provided over $42 million for the Highway Watch Program to promote security awareness among all segments of the commercial motor carrier industry and the transportation community at large. For this fiscal year, in this bill that is before the Senate, $15 million is provided for this program.

For the previous 2 fiscal years, $12 million has been provided for the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to test and evaluate a variety of technologies, such as global positioning systems, wireless communications, use of global positioning satellites, alarm systems, biometric identification, and radio frequency identification devices to ensure that dangerous or potentially dangerous vehicles are identified.

Field testing has just been completed, and the evaluation phase in this program has begun. These are steps toward the goal that we all share, and that is identified by the Senator from New York as a very imminent and urgent need. It is an urgent need, and we are treating it as such over the prior appropriations bill's approval and provisions, as well as this year's appropriations bill.

There was a mandate in the PATRIOT Act that the Transportation Security Administration has implemented, in partnership with the departments in the State motor vehicle area, to ensure that all drivers who are licensed to transport hazardous materials are subjected to Federal background checks to be sure the people who are operating these vehicles ought to be operating them; that they are not high-risk people; that they do not have something in their background that raises alarms about their dependability.

The Transportation Security Administration has undertaken background checks on 2.7 million drivers who have hazardous materials endorsements on their commercial driver's licenses. These background checks have identified approximately 36 individuals who are no longer allowed to transport hazardous materials. TSA will complete this background check, and when it is completed they will have conducted name-based background checks on all 3.5 million drivers this year. There will be an FBI fingerprint-based criminal history check undertaken as well.

The offset would affect the Office of Under Secretary of Management's Human Resources Division.

In terms of research, what I am suggesting is that every effort possible is being made, through grants provided by the Department of Homeland Security, technology development, and deployment in the department, to develop a more efficient system for identifying drivers to be sure they are trustworthy and are not threats to the Nation's security through the operation of vehicles carrying hazardous materials, the confiscation of vehicles that are carrying hazardous materials or that could be converted into bombmaking vehicles. All of this is being done in an aggressive and comprehensive way by the Department of Homeland Security, in cooperation with State and local authorities throughout the country.

Private sector groups, shippers who are undertaking to safeguard the content of packages that go into vehicles, are also very actively involved in helping ensure that the public is not going to be put in danger through the use of our transportation system in this way.

We think the provisions of the bill are adequate. To provide funding that the Senator is suggesting is needed will be wasteful and cannot be efficiently used for the purposes he seeks. The goals are notable and laudable. We share them and we are doing everything we can to ensure that we have in place the programs, training, research, and technologies that we need to protect ourselves from these kinds of attacks and attacks against the Nation's critical infrastructure and population centers.

Mr. President, I move to table the Schumer amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thought there were 2 minutes remaining.

Mr. President, the American Trucking Association has delivered a letter to me. It is signed by 34 organizations or industries that are concerned that the passage of the Schumer amendment would result in an enormous burden on our national economic recovery, that it would impose enormous costs on many industries, that it would force haulers to undertake expensive new activities that have not been approved or suggested by the Transportation Security Administration as necessary or as improvements to the security systems now in place. This is a three-page letter. Rather than have it read into the Record, I ask unanimous consent the letter, dated September 13, addressed to me, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I think the Senate has heard as much discussion as they probably need to form an opinion about this amendment. We urge Senators to vote yes on the motion to table and permit the committee to continue to work with the Department and industries that are involved to bring the best possible technologies into play to protect the security of our country and the transportation industries.

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

Mr. President, this amendment offers to add a substantial amount of money to the operational budget of the U.S. Coast Guard. I remind Senators that the Coast Guard's total appropriation in this next fiscal year is $705 million above last year's appropriation. It is about $134 million above the President's request for overall U.S. Coast Guard activity. We urge the Senate to vote no against the Lautenberg amendment.

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we reviewed the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington. We agree to support it, and we ask the Senate to adopt it.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we are at a point in the deliberations that I think we can be pleased with the progress we have made so far last week as well as today. We hope to be able to push ahead and complete action on this bill tomorrow evening. That is the expectation of the leadership. But I know we have a number of amendments that Senators are preparing to offer tomorrow. There are also four amendments that we have had discussion on which have not yet been disposed of. But in view of the fact we have made such good progress and there are other activities that are important to Senators off the floor at this point in the evening, it is my hope that we will go into morning business and let the leadership decide how long that will be.

I thank my friend from Nevada, who has been very helpful in handling the bill on the floor, along with our other leaders on our side of the aisle as well, particularly Senator Frist, the majority leader.

Mr. President, we are happy to stay here as long as there is business to be transacted.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his suggestion of this change. As I understand the amendment, it would limit the appropriation provided in this bill by restricting the opportunities for the Federal Protective Service to enter into certain contracts. It imposes conditions under which they can engage in contract activities for protective services at Federal building sites.

I am advised by the Federal Protective Service, which is under the Department of Homeland Security, that this is an amendment not supported by the administration. There are those who are involved in helping to safeguard the security of Federal buildings and other facilities. They have limited resources which they say would be significantly diverted from the primary mission of providing the professional, qualified, and capable security guard service according to contracts and the needs of individual locations. The restrictive language of the amendment is counterproductive to the progress the Federal Protective Service has made.

So the argument that I have to make and that I am happy to make is that this amendment should not be included in this legislation, and we would be forced to resist it. I will urge my colleagues to vote against it at the appropriate time.

The leadership has indicated, I think, either formally or informally, that there will be no further rollcall votes this evening, so this is an issue that would have to go over until tomorrow,

and we will be happy to discuss the details more fully tomorrow so that all Senators are aware of the impact this amendment would have on the Federal Protective Service and its ability to do its job.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside so that other matters may be brought up.

Mr. President, there is a matter I can bring to the attention of the Senate, a modification of an amendment that has already been adopted.

Amendment No. 3618, As Modified

On behalf of Senator Byrd and myself, I offer a modification to amendment No. 3618 which was adopted by voice vote on Friday, September 10, 2004.

There is no objection to consideration of the amendments. They have been cleared on this side of the aisle.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I do not know of any other Senator who is planning to speak or offer an amendment at this time, so I think it is appropriate to put in a quorum call, unless we go to morning business.

We have no objection to going into morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Monday, September 13, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., for a hearing titled ``The Importance of Real-Time, Actionable Intelligence: Ensuring the U.S. Intelligence Community Supports Homeland Defense and Departmental Needs.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``A Review of the Tools to Fight Terrorism'' on Monday, September 13, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in Dirksen 226. The witness list will be sent later today.

Witness List

Panel I: Hon. Daniel J. Bryant, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC; and Barry Sabin, Esq., Chief, Counterterrorism Section of the Criminal Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Panel II: Professor Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lore Aguayo, a fellow in Senator Talent's office, be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I assume we are now on the Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005?

Mr. President, first of all, I thank the leadership for making available time in the schedule for the handling of this bill and giving us a chance to consider amendments that are proposed by other Senators to the bill as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee. It is important to note that yesterday's action and the action of the full committee so far have set the tone for the consideration of this bill.

First of all, to remind Senators, the bill contains funding at a level of $33.1 billion. Mr. President, $32 billion is for discretionary spending; the remainder is for mandatory programs or the allocation of funds that are collected under other provisions of law. This represents an almost 10-percent increase in funding for the next fiscal year as compared with the funding that is appropriated for this fiscal year, 2004.

The fiscal year begins on October 1, as everyone knows. Substantial increases are included in this legislation for the activities of the Coast Guard as well as the Transportation Security Administration. The bill fully funds the President's requested activity for Project BioShield, which is a very important new endeavor to further enhance the security of our country against bioterrorism. The bill also provides funding for a new program that is designed to enhance security for our country by using new technologies to identify and verify visitors coming into the country using visas. This program is called United States Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology. Of course, it has its own acronym, US VISIT, so it is easy for us to remember.

One other feature of this year's appropriations bill is the limitation that we are provided as a result of a provision included in the defense appropriations conference report that limits, in effect, the discretionary spending of all appropriations bills for fiscal year 2005. The limitation is at a level of $821.9 billion. That is enforced through a mechanism of the Budget Act which permits points of order to be made on amendments that would seek to increase the bill's funding beyond the level of its allocation, which was established by the Appropriations Committee.

We are pleased that the Senate has recognized the validity of that limitation. Yesterday we were able to exercise that point of order successfully to defeat amendments that would have increased spending beyond that allocated level of funding. We are at the limit of the allocation that is available to our subcommittee. The $32 billion in discretionary funding is the limitation that is provided to the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.

Today we are pleased to consider any other amendments Senators may wish to offer. We are ready to debate and dispose of amendments. We can agree to some, I hope, and we are happy to work with Senators throughout the remainder of this session. We are happy the leader has indicated that any votes that may be ordered will go over to next week. There will not be any recorded votes on this bill today.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3578, As Amended

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Frist, Byrd, and Voinovich, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this amendment increases funding for the Department of Homeland Security fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill. It is fully offset by an extension of customs user fees to September 30, 2005.

Specifically, this amendment will add funds for the following programs:

$40 million for additional radiation detection devices,

$40 million for additional border inspectors,

$40 million for additional border patrol agents,

$40 million for additional investigators,

$40 million for detention and removals of illegal aliens,

$81 million for additional rail and transit security grants, and

$36 million for additional emergency management performance grants.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, there are two unanimous consent requests that have been cleared.

I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 127, and that the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution and preamble be agreed to, en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3908, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

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

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

the proposals over and above what the administration has requested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prognostication about the amount of funding that the

Federal Government should provide in the near future is

premature at best. Recent calls for the funding upward of

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

Federal funds have started to flow. Absent a more clear

articulation of an end state and the levels of preparedness

sought to be achieved with some reasonable way to measure our

efforts, any attempts to establish an overall price tag is

mere speculation and could be politically unwise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I would. We have thoroughly debated that.

I object.

Mr. President, Senator Dole has asked me to advise that she is absent from this afternoon's votes due to an emergency visit to her home State of North Carolina. As you know, the remnants of Hurricane Frances devastated a large portion of western North Carolina this week, and Senator Dole felt it was imperative that she make an immediate trip to the State to assess the damages and offer assistance in whatever manner possible.

I ask unanimous consent that the Record show that had she been present, Senator Dole would have voted against the Byrd amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

How about 30 seconds each?

A minute, and I will not use my time.

Mr. President, regular order.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the point of the Senator is well taken. I hope the Senate will consider his remarks very carefully. We need to move ahead with dispatch. There is no reason why we should consider delaying the consideration of this bill even further.

Mr. President, this amendment is offered to increase funding for port security grants. Specifically, it would increase the authority for spending in the bill by $300 million. Senators should know the bill already contains funding for port security grants in the amount of $150 million, and since fiscal year 2002 we have provided funding for this program of almost $500 million, specifically for port security grants.

A lot of progress has been made to upgrade the quality of our detection

processes. We have seen money going for training and equipping of port security officials. We are making important and constructive changes in procedures to help ensure that we can identify suspicious activity around the ports of the country. The Coast Guard is involved, of course. As we have talked about earlier today, we are providing for modernizing the fleet of the Coast Guard and doing other things that help assure that across our country we are going to be able to enjoy a safer and more secure environment.

On Friday, September 10, all of the funds that were appropriated for 2004, the current fiscal year, $50 million in grants, were awarded. So the administration is working expeditiously to carry out the directives of the Congress in awarding these funds.

I may point out that the President's request for this particular grant program for this next fiscal year was only $46 million.

So we have already tripled the amount of money that will be going out to State and local officials, security officials, for this program.

We have one other problem with the amendment as well and that is that there is no offset provided as required by the Budget Act. To simply add money for a program is not going to be permitted unless an offset is provided. So under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, a point of order would lie against the amendment.

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was rejected.

Mr. President, has an amendment been reported?

Mr. President, we have not had an opportunity to check on the legal authority for appropriations being made directly to the American Red Cross, but I have asked my staff to check to see under what authority the Senate would be authorized to appropriate funds for a private or a charitable organization.

The American Red Cross, I do not think, is an agency of the Federal Government. There has been no request submitted to the Congress from the administration to fund volunteer charitable organizations under this bill or under any other bill, as far as I know. They, of course, render very valuable and very important services not only here but around the world. We are all familiar with the good work they do.

So I am hopeful we can check to see what the authorities are and can provide the Senate information on which to base a judgment as to what we should do with respect to this amendment.

It requests, as I understand it--I do not have a copy of the amendment. That is why I asked if it had been sent to the desk.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Florida.

I would be glad to consider the amendment and review it carefully. I wonder if there is an offset in the amendment that would provide some source for making up the funds. We are limited in our allocation of funding under the Budget Act, and we are at the limit. Any amendment that adds spending to the bill without offsetting it against some other account is subject to a point of order under the Budget Act. That was the next part of the process of analyzing this amendment. I hadn't gotten any satisfaction on the answer to that question. Maybe the Senator knows the answer.

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

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

Mr. President, I had an opportunity to review the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Florida and to consult with representatives of the administration and my staff who have helped me analyze this. This amendment, as proposed, would provide $70 million to the Red Cross to reimburse them for expenses and enable them to provide disaster assistance to hurricane victims and for other purposes under their authorization, under their jurisdiction.

We passed yesterday a $2 billion appropriation supplemental for the Federal Emergency Management Agency General Disaster Relief Fund. These funds are to be used for the emergencies that exist in the State of Florida and elsewhere, where the funds in this account had been depleted.

We are told by administration officials, in consultation now, that they are considering whether an additional amount may be needed in a supplemental that could be submitted to Congress as early as Monday.

Officials are discussing this with the Red Cross. They are discussing this with the Office of Management and Budget, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. So we do not know right now exactly how much the Red Cross is going to need and whether additional funds need to be added to that $2 billion account we have already approved and, if so, how much.

What I am hoping is we can withhold action on the Senator's amendment tonight and continue to stay in touch with officials in the administration and with the Senator from Florida and others who are interested in this and make sure the funds that are needed, that the Red Cross is entitled to, are in some bill. It may be the next supplemental is the appropriate bill rather than this annual appropriations bill we are considering now.

I want to cooperate with the Senator and help make sure the disaster victims get the help they need and that the State of Florida gets the help it needs to recover from this very serious situation.

Those are my findings and those are my assurances. I hope the Senator will understand and not urge we take action on his amendment tonight.

I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his willingness to set his amendment aside. It will be held at the desk, and we will consider it in due course if we do not resolve it in the supplemental as I expect it to be resolved.

I assure the Senator that he is correct in the notion that we are going to work with him, cooperate with him, and with the people of his State and others who benefit from these Red Cross activities.

I thank the Senator for his cooperation.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, let me congratulate the distinguished Senator from Tennessee for this amendment. I think what this achieves, if it is agreed to by the Senate, is that it prevents this oath being changed by regulation or fiat by some administration official. If the oath is going to be changed, it will have to be changed by law because it was established by law, as he points out, in section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

I am glad to be reminded that I am a cosponsor of his corresponding bill, and so are other Senators. I am told that an effort is being made to clear the amendment on the other side of the aisle, and we are awaiting the advice of the distinguished leader. I am going to ask if the Senator will permit us to go into a quorum until we can get a response from the other side.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment of the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, be temporarily laid aside to permit the Senator from California to offer her amendment.

Mr. President, we appreciate the distinguished Senator from California----

I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Amendment No. 3608

Mr. President, I am happy to have that information from the distinguished leader. Previously

the Senator from Tennessee offered an amendment. We had set that amendment aside to see if it could be cleared on both sides. We are glad it has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we call up the Alexander amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3609

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that we return to the Boxer amendment.

Mr. President, as I understand the amendment of the distinguished Senator from California, she proposes to add $70 million to a grant program account that provides funds for State and local governments for a variety of purposes. The purposes include a strategy for dealing with homeland security issues, including training and exercises, equipment, including interoperable communications equipment and technical assistance, and may not be used for construction activities. The amount of money in that account in the bill is $2,845,081,000. Her amendment would add $70 million to that amount and earmark that $70 million for interoperable equipment only.

Now, just looking at what this does to one State--let's just pick out California, coincidentally--funds have been made available to the State of California under this grant program for State and local governments in excess of $680 million since fiscal year 2002. The State of California can use that money for interoperable communications. They can use it for other things. I do not know exactly what they are using the money for, but I assume they are using some of it for interoperable communications, as they are authorized to do, as they are permitted to do.

But what is a concern is to shut down a new management system that is being developed by the Department to make the Department more efficient, to make it operate more effectively, to take all that money, prohibit the use of any of that money, and add it to this other account. It seems to me it is second-guessing the decision made by the full Committee on Appropriations, and our subcommittee in particular.

When we analyzed the request from the Department of Homeland Security, there was a request for $102.5 million for a program to develop a new pay system, performance management, managerial training, to modernize the human resource system of the Department of Homeland Security.

Our staff conferred closely with the Department, asked questions about what this would do, how important was it, and went through the drill. We also had an opportunity to review our staff's assessment of it. The committee decided to approve $70 million of that $102 million request. The work is now underway. The work is to develop and put this in place. It would be a big mistake at this point to take that $70 million and shift it to another program, where we already provide a substantial amount of money, as I said, $2.8 billion, for these grants to State and local governments, and then to earmark some parts of that just for interoperable communications equipment. The point was to leave these judgments up to State and local entities, not to, as a U.S. Congress person or a Senator, make these decisions for the States.

California has plenty of money in this account to buy a lot of interoperable communications equipment if they want it, if they need it. But to make a judgment as to how they should use the money now and earmark certain parts for specific functions is beyond our ability to really make the decisions and make them in a correct way that serves the final goal, the objective of an improved national homeland security program.

So we are strongly opposed to the adoption of this amendment. We think it would be a mistake. It may sound good to some, but it does not make any sense to this Senator. The subcommittee has worked closely with the Department to understand the need for the human resources system. It has helped determine the level of spending to allow the Department to move forward with this system. We concluded the funding included in the bill is necessary for the Department to be able to move forward with a pay-for-performance system.

I do not have anything else to say about the amendment. It is offset. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I understand we may have an amendment to be offered by the Senator from Iowa at this time.

There are Senators who have indicated an intention to offer other amendments. We are reviewing some at this time. We hope to be able to accept some of these amendments. We appreciate the cooperation of all Senators today. We have made excellent progress on the bill. We have taken up a number of amendments and voted on them and we hope to be able to complete action on this bill on Tuesday evening. We hope it is not late Tuesday evening. So we are making every effort to organize our effort and encourage those who do have amendments to please let the committee know about the amendments. We have an identified list that is in order, and for those who intend to offer amendments, the sooner they can get us copies of those amendments, the sooner we may be able to let them know whether we can accept them or suggest modifications that could be acceptable.

We would like to cooperate with all Senators in moving the bill along with dispatch. We do not see any need to delay the Senate and to cause us to be in late tonight or tomorrow. We know

some Senators have plans for travel and we are hoping we can take up another amendment or two tonight and then be able to work on other parts of the bill tomorrow as well. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation with the committee.

I understand the Senator from Iowa is on the floor, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as I understand the amendment proposed by the distinguished Senator from Iowa, it would change the percentage by which mitigation funds are calculated to be due from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Disaster Relief Fund, which we replenished with a supplemental appropriations bill just yesterday with the approval of $2 billion of new money, is an example of the stress that has been placed on this fund because of recent disasters in Florida and elsewhere. To refresh the memory of Senators, the program involves a disaster relief and mitigation funding program. The Disaster Relief Fund provides individual assistance to those who have been displaced from their homes in disasters.

It helps pay for food, shelter, and other emergency needs. FEMA--the Federal Emergency Management Agency--administers this program after a disaster. As I understand, approval of the amendment would increase the funds FEMA has to pay out of the Disaster Assistance Fund. I am, frankly, not clear in my own mind exactly how this works, but I am advised this is

going to have the net effect of more than doubling the Federal obligation in disaster assistance. Every State that is declared by the President to be eligible for disaster assistance has its damages assessed and becomes eligible for mitigation money. I am told the fund that pays for mitigation benefits is like buying out homes which are in flood-prone areas or building retaining walls to help in the event of the next disaster. These are important efforts to undertake so future disasters will not result in the same kind of damage and will be mitigated or lessened, reduced. The Federal Emergency Management Agency calculates that 7\1/2\ percent over and above the amount of Federal disaster assistance it has provided and gives that money to States.

In the past 2 years and in this year's Homeland Security appropriations bill, there is another form of mitigation funding which is available to States called the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund administered by FEMA, to which States can submit competitive applications to receive mitigation funding before a disaster strikes. Any State, regardless of it having been designated a Presidential disaster, can submit a request and have it judged on its merits.

We have attempted to balance the various kinds of disaster assistance available to victims and available to States in this bill. We support the President's effort to offer assistance to communities before and after disaster strikes. It allows communities to raise risk awareness to help reduce the Nation's disaster losses through better mitigation planning, and the implementation of plan and cost-effective measures. We think at this point it is not the responsible course of action to double the formula and increase the amount States are going to be permitted and can claim from FEMA and not increasing the amount of money that is available to FEMA to pay out the money. This is language change. It is actually bill language. It is authorizing language on an appropriations bill. It doesn't belong on this bill. It should be considered first by the Environment and Public Works Committee, the committee that has legislative jurisdiction of these programs. I understand that committee has a bill that has been sent over to the House that deals with this issue. We should await the advice and counsel and action of the authorizing committee before we act on this proposal.

Because of those reasons, I urge the Senate to reject this amendment. I think it is clearly authorizing language, and it will be my intention--I don't want to cut off the right of any Senator to speak-- to move to table the Harkin amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. But I will refrain from doing so until I am assured that Senators who want to speak on the amendment have a right to do so.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the full committee, my friend from Alaska, Senator Stevens, for his kind comments about managing this bill. I appreciate his urging also that this bill be completed on Tuesday. We think that can be done. We think with the cooperation of the Senate it will be done.

I am now advised the amendment of the Senator from Iowa does contain general legislation, and because of that a point of order might be sustained under rule XVI. Therefore, I raise a point of order under rule XVI that the amendment constitutes general legislation on an appropriations measure and is not in order.

Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia has an amendment. This may be a good time for him to offer that.

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

Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator for his explanation of his bill and for his initiative in calling attention to the needs of the area of his State in need of special attention from Federal agencies, particularly designing some way to help make sure this kind of disaster does not occur--if it is possible to do that-- with engineering changes or other mitigation efforts, particularly in the Richmond area which was so seriously devastated and damaged recently by flooding.

We think the Senator has a good suggestion and we are willing to recommend the Senate adopt this amendment on a voice vote.

Mr. President, I have been advised that the other side wants to look at the amendment. I am happy for anyone who wants to look at the amendment to look at it. It was very coherently explained by the Senator from Virginia.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have been advised that the other side wants to look at the amendment. I am happy for anyone who wants to look at the amendment to look at it. It was very coherently explained by the Senator from Virginia.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

We appreciate the Senator from New York bringing this to the attention of the Senate. We know there is a tracking system in effect--but we are not sure it is as inclusive as he suggests we need it to be--for trucks that carry hazardous material. They try to keep up with that. They have a system in place. We are glad to have the chance to review this suggestion, and we will do that and hope the Senate will withhold action on this amendment tonight, and we can call it up tomorrow, or later, whatever the leaders end up deciding we will do in terms of further action on this bill.

We are at a point where I think we are close to winding up the action on this bill today. We have had a full day of activity. A number of amendments have been presented and voted on. We appreciate the cooperation of all Senators in letting us know the identity of the amendments that were to be offered. We are going to continue to work hard to get this bill finished by sometime on Tuesday of next week. That is our goal, and I think we will be able to achieve that goal.

One item we hope to be able to clear has been presented to the Senate by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen, related to a survey in the State of Virginia on a mitigation issue surrounding flooding in the Richmond area. It is my hope that we will be able to get that passed, if we can, by a voice vote tonight, and then maybe go out if there is no further business.

I yield to my friend from Nevada.

Amendment No. 3610

Mr. President, I ask that we agree to the Allen amendment on a voice vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I am happy to do that.

I think that is the understanding.

That is consistent with my understanding of the schedule as well.

Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, intends to offer an amendment tomorrow morning. So we will have that before the Senate.

Mr. President, I think this is a good plan. The Senate has done good work today. I think the outline the Senator from Nevada has given us is a thoughtful way to handle the bill. We will be here tomorrow morning and continue to make progress on the bill. We will be ready to cooperate with all Senators to the fullest extent possible.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business for debate only, with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Appropriations Committee staff members and detailees be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security appropriations bill and any votes that may occur in relation thereto: Less Spivey, Carol Cribbs, Kimberly Nelson, James Hayes, Avery Forbes, Brian Glackin, Chip Walgren, Scott Nance, Alexa Sewell, Peter Edge, and Sean MacKenzie.

Madam President, we are now on the Homeland Security appropriations bill for the next fiscal year, 2005.

For the information of Senators, this morning the President signed the supplemental appropriations bill the Senate passed last night. The President had requested a supplemental for the Disaster Relief Fund of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Because of the pressure on that fund, the Agency would have run out of money this morning if the Congress had not acted in response to the President's request on yesterday.

The House acted and the Senate approved the supplemental appropriations bill for the Department. So I am happy to make that report to the Senate. There was some discussion of that issue last night, and I appreciate the cooperation and the support of the Senate in taking the action we did.

We are now prepared to consider the full year appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

We have some opening statements we will make. Senator Byrd is the senior Democratic member of this subcommittee, as well as the full committee of the Appropriations Committee. He has a statement he wishes to make.

After opening statements are made, we will be happy to consider any amendments Senators wish to offer. We hope to be able to complete action on this bill as soon as reasonably possible. By the end of the week would be great, if we could accomplish that. But if not, I think we will have the support of the leader and the chairman of the full committee to continue to work on this bill until we do finish it.

It is a matter of great importance that these agencies and this Department know what the funding levels are going to be for the fiscal year that begins very soon, October 1. We certainly need to take action in a timely way for orderly planning for the use of those funds that are appropriated by the Congress for this important work.

Protecting our homeland is a very important--there is no more important action by the Federal Government, in my opinion. So I hope we can consider this bill with a sense of serious deliberation and work hard to complete action in a timely fashion.

I appreciate very much the cooperation of Senators who are letting us know about suggestions they have for changes in our bill as reported by the

Appropriations Committee. We will consider them, and we will accept those that we can accept. We hope we will be able to have the full cooperation of all Senators in that respect.

Madam President, since there is not much time left between now and the weekly luncheons both sides have planned for today, it is my suggestion that we go into a period for morning business so Senators can speak if they choose to between now and 12:30 p.m.--I think is the time for the luncheons to begin--and then we can come back in at 2:15 p.m. and resume consideration of the bill at that time.

That is certainly fine with me, and I join with the Senator in making that request. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period for morning business until the hour of 12:30 p.m.