Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is imperative that the Senate act on this measure now. The Department of Homeland Security's Emergency Preparedness and Response disaster relief fund has been depleted to a dangerously low level. This is due to nearly $300 million in unexpected expenses related to the Shuttle Columbia disaster recovery effort, and another $200 million because of the tornadoes and floods that have affected many States this year.

On July 7, 2003, the President submitted an emergency supplemental request to Congress totaling $1.9 billion.

Emergency supplemental appropriations fully funding the President's request are included in the Senate-passed fiscal year 2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. However, the House approved for the Department of Homeland Security's Emergency Preparedness and Response disaster relief fund only $983.6 million. Not only does this bill not meet the needs of wildland fire management and NASA, but it does not include all that is needed in the Emergency Preparedness and Response disaster relief fund. The House bill is not sufficient to meet the needs for disaster relief outlined by the President in his request.

I received from my state's Emergency Management Agency a specific request that illustrates why this supplemental is needed now. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter from Robert Latham, Jr. be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to commend the hard-working members of the staff of the Appropriations Committee for assisting in the passage of the Homeland Security appropriations bill last night.

For over 3 days we were on the floor debating the bill and considering amendments. They did a masterful job helping guide those of us who were in charge of managing the bill along the path toward final passage.

I also thank the President pro tempore, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for his active involvement in helping to bring that bill to final passage. And my friend from West Virginia, the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, and his able staff all worked hard to help guide this bill through the subcommittee, the full committee, and then, even though we had disagreements on a number of subjects during the consideration of the bill on the floor, the Senate worked its will. We passed the bill, and I know we will go to conference with the House.

But those members of the subcommittee staff I particularly want to single out for praise and my expression of appreciation this morning are: Rebecca Davies, Carol Cribbs, James Hayes, Les Spivey, Rachelle Schroeder, Josh Manley, and our intern Ferriday Mansel. I am deeply grateful to them.

Madam President, we reviewed the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota. The operative language of the amendment is as follows:

The Secretary of Homeland Security . . . shall report to

the Committee on Appropriations . . . on the feasibility of

providing access to State and local law enforcement agencies

to the database of the Department of State on potential

terrorists . . . including the process by which classified

information shall be secured from unauthorized disclosure.

We discussed the amendment with the distinguished Senator and are prepared to accept the amendment.

Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Connecticut has offered an amendment to add exactly, according to my addition, $14.408 billion to the total spending provided in this bill that funds the Department of Homeland Security.

The statements that he makes regarding the Council on Foreign Relations report are certainly to be considered seriously by the Senate. They have done good work. Former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart have worked hard to bring the attention of the whole country to the needs we have in this area.

I think one thing overlooked is that the Department of Homeland Security's budget does not represent the total amount of spending being undertaken by the Federal Government, nor State and local governments, to do the things necessary to improve our capability not only to respond to natural and manmade attacks, or terrorist acts, but to prepare for them as well, and to improve our intelligence capability and what we are doing to find out what the terrorists are up to, who they are, and how they could pose threats to American citizens and our homeland.

Much of the spending is done in other Departments that is not included in this amount. So to focus on this budget for this Department and say there is not enough money here to do what we need--of course there is not. There is no money in here for the CIA or the FBI. There is no money in here for doing things such as bioterrorism research on how we can protect ourselves against bioterrorism threats. That is being done by the Department of Health and Human Services, through the Centers for Disease Control. They are funded in other bills.

This budget, and the budget request submitted by the President for homeland security, represents only 58 percent of the total Federal effort. So there is much more being done than is reflected in the budget of this Department and this appropriations bill which, incidentally, adds a billion dollars over the President's budget request for these activities. Much of that money is going to the first responders' effort this year and will next year.

We cannot measure what we have done in the last 2 years and project it as to what we will do in the future. We cannot do it all in 1 year. We are making progress, and more progress needs to be made.

It is not just a Federal program either, it is a national program. It involves all governments, all agencies, and the American people themselves. We are all more aware and more alert to the dangers and what we can do personally to help improve the security of our homeland. So the adding of $14.408 billion to this bill, with no corresponding offset, will violate the Budget Act because we are only allocated a certain amount of spending. When we go above that, then the bill becomes subject to a point of order that any Senator can make and the whole bill falls.

So with a great deal of respect for my friend from Connecticut, 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 appreciate the assistance of the distinguished Senator from Nevada. We have tried to find out the number of amendments that may remain to be offered to the bill so we can get some idea of what we are looking at in terms of the time we have for consideration. We hope to complete action on this bill later today. I am confident we can do that.

We still have a number of amendments that have to be offered and dealt with. We hope Senators who do have amendments will come to the floor and offer them.

In just a couple of minutes, we are going to ask unanimous consent that the list of amendments we know about be the only amendments in order to the bill. We have several amendments on that list. Just glancing at the list, it looks like about 12 in number at this point. We hope Senators won't call and say they ``may'' have an amendment. If they do have one, they have a right to offer it. We will respect the right of any Senator to offer an amendment to the bill.

We have considered most of the amendments about which we have heard. I am going to ask that Senators

who have an amendment let us know about it so we can clear the list on both sides and limit the number of amendments that remain to be offered to the bill.

I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

Yes.

Mr. President, I must say that I agree, as a general rule, with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Nevada about the way the Senate should transact its business. I agree completely.

There are situations, such as on the Budget Act, when we are limited in the amount of time we have for the consideration of a measure and necessarily we end up with one of these vote-aramas, as the Senator points out.

I think, as a general rule, as we consider a bill, after the debate on the amendment is complete, or whatever the issue is, such as a motion to waive a point of order, we should vote on it. I agree.

For that reason, I advise Senators that we are about to have a vote on the motion to waive by Senator Dodd on the point of order that was previously made to the Dodd amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the motion to waive.

Yes.

Mr. President, before we vote, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the only amendments in order to the bill, H.R. 2555:

Senator Byrd, three amendments; Senator Levin, two amendments; Senator Feingold, two amendments; Senator Rockefeller; Senator Reed; Senator Schumer, three amendments; Senator Hutchison, two amendments; Senator Daschle, two amendments; Senator Sarbanes has an amendment; Senator Landrieu, two amendments; Senator Feinstein has an amendment; Senator Bayh, two amendments; Senator Collins has an amendment; Senator Frist, two amendments; Senator Specter has an amendment; Senator Talent has an amendment; Senator McCain has an amendment; and Senator Warner has an amendment.

I agree to that addition to my unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I thank the Senators sincerely for assisting us in the identification of the outstanding amendments.

Mr. President, the yeas and nays have been ordered.

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, 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, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is my intention to review the amendment, and when I have had an opportunity to reread it, I will be in a better position to respond to it.

I am very hopeful the funding in this bill will enable the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the heads of the various directorates and the other agencies that are funded in this bill--the Coast Guard and others--to carry out their responsibilities to improve the overall security of our homeland to protect against terrorist attacks, to try to anticipate terrorists attacks, and to recover from natural disasters.

We have within this Department a wide range of functions and responsibilities, one of which has been identified in this amendment as, I suppose, being funded at too high a level because the offset that is contained is to take funds from one of these directorates and move it to the function of port security.

It is a very difficult challenge to try to balance the competing interests within this Department to make sure each area is not only well staffed with people who know what they are doing, but that they have the funds to carry out their mission.

The directorate that suffers if this amendment is adopted is the one who helps bring together the intelligence information to assess the vulnerabilities of various critical infrastructure areas such as chemical facilities identified by the Senator from West Virginia. If that money is taken away, it will be less likely they can carry out their mission in the way we would all hope they could.

This is a very important area of activity for the Department of Homeland Security. It is an area that, if limited in the way proposed by this amendment, would reduce the capacity to obtain intelligence or warnings and to carry out the threat analysis functions that are the responsibility of this directorate, and $292 million would be taken from the directorate responsible for information analysis and infrastructure protection.

That is 35 percent of the funds that are made available in the bill for this directorate. This is a drastic cut. It is a meat-ax approach to one directorate, to shift funds to another area that we all recognize is in need of funding, but it already is funded. It is funded at a level that, in the judgment of our committee, would help ensure that our ports are protected, that we are able to defend against not only terrorist attacks but any other activity that would threaten or undermine the security interests of the United States.

Just this week, an article was carried by the Washington Post talking about inadequacies of the new intelligence unit at the Department of Homeland Security and talking about the challenges it faced. I read the article and am familiar with some of the charges made in the article. But the conclusion was that they were not able to compete with the CIA, the FBI, the other established intelligence-gathering agencies because they were having a hard time attracting competent people and getting the number of analysts they ought to have in this Department to carry out their responsibilities. It pointed out, for example, that the intelligence analysts don't have the computers they need that are capable of receiving classified, top secret and above, documents.

If this amendment is adopted, it is going to make it even more difficult. I can't imagine their being able to sustain the workforce they have. People they tried to recruit to come aboard this Department and help deal with these new challenges may have to be

dismissed. The ability of the Department to perform assessments of critical infrastructure--drinking water supply systems, chemical facilities, as I mentioned--and other areas where large numbers of people may gather from time to time; arenas, stadium crowds, baseball parks, and the Nation's seaports are just some that come to mind.

I am hopeful that the Senate will reject this amendment. It is clear to me that there are a lot of Senators who would like to increase the funding available for port security grants. If you are going to award a grant to a port, you have to be able to evaluate the security needs of these ports. All the ports in the United States are filing applications. There is a backlog of applications. One of the reasons for the backlog, in terms of assessing and approving and selecting the ones to be funded, is lack of personnel to do the job.

It seems to me this amendment seeks to improve port security but at the same time take away money that would be used to assess which ports are in greater need, where should the grant money go, which ones of the applications have the highest merit. You have to have people to do that. This amendment takes away money for the people to make those assessments.

Also affected by the offset would be the National Communications System, which would be cut deeply if this amendment were accepted. The priority telecommunications programs would not be able to be implemented, programs which allow high-ranking officials to be able to use cellular telecommunications in the event of a terrorist attack or other catastrophic event. This was a major problem on September 11. We talked about the breakdown in communications. One agency could not communicate with the other. This has been a problem nationwide. The adoption of this amendment would exacerbate that problem.

I think the amendment, while I know the distinguished Senator from West Virginia is deeply concerned about the port security issue, would undermine one of the most important activities and cripple an already tight budget situation, make it more difficult for our intelligence units to function effectively in the Department of Homeland Security.

At the appropriate time, it is my intention to move to table the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia, but I do not intend to make that motion until other Senators who may wish to be heard on the amendment have a chance to speak.

Madam President, I move to table the Byrd amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the motion to waive?

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

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, that is satisfactory with this side. We appreciate the help of the Senator from Nevada in working out this time arrangement.

That is right.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for his comments. He has put this matter in perspective. We appreciate his comments and his statements about the effect of this amendment on those parts of the bill that will have funds transferred from them to this so-called high-threat urban area account.

When we started talking about this bill yesterday, we had Senator after Senator talking about adding money for new technologies and making sure that we develop and deploy new kinds of the most modern defensive systems we can have to defeat and detect terrorist attacks and to make our country share in security. One of those was an antimissile system for commercial aircraft. You may remember Senator Boxer was on the floor talking about immediately putting those capabilities in the domestic commercial airline industry. We have funds in the bill to do just that. But guess what. This amendment cuts those funds. This amendment would take money away from the antimissile defense capability fund where we are developing and will deploy the capability as soon as it is ready.

Funds for universities throughout the country that are now eligible for grants for research into new technologies which will improve our capability to defend ourselves across a wide range of areas that we need to explore, develop, and deploy will be undermined by this amendment. The funds will be cut if this amendment is agreed to.

We have had Members offering amendments for money for chemical industry infrastructure protection--special money going to the chemical industry. The money we have in this bill now for the chemical industry will be cut if this amendment is agreed to.

The last vote we took on this was on the subject of waiving the Budget Act. Some Senators came up, and I heard them say, You are going to need 60 votes. They will need 60 votes to prevail to waive the Budget Act. So my vote really won't matter, since you already have 40 votes to defeat this. I can vote for the amendment to add money, since it won't come from any other account.

Some other Senators were concerned because we were going to violate the Budget Act. I heard some Senators say, If you could find an offset, I would vote for your amendment. Now we have an offset, and Senators are going to have to take a new look at this.

This is not an automatic decision that can be made. But to think about its effect on those accounts and those activities which are going to be cut by this amendment, these are real cuts that are going to be made.

I hope Senators will look carefully and balance their judgment against the need to add money for this account that is now in the $750 million area.

Think about this: We also put $750 million into this account when we passed the supplemental just a few weeks ago. We passed a supplemental for the remainder of this fiscal year and added $750 million for these same urban areas for which they now want to increase money. To me, that is not fair. That is not fair.

People throughout the country have an equal interest. Whether you are in an urban area or a rural area, you have an equal interest in this being a balanced bill that treats all areas of the country the same in terms of the quality of the response we are going to make in our individual communities. You can't just channel the money to the big cities and expect it is going to solve our national problem. This is not a problem just for the big cities to solve. It is a problem for our country to solve. It is a national problem. It is not just a Federal Government problem. Every town and every city and every State ought to be able to share equally and fairly in the funds that are made available in this bill. If this amendment is agreed to, the fairness doctrine will go out the window.

I urge Members to vote against this amendment.

Mr. President, I know of no Senators who want to speak on this issue who have not already spoken. I think we are ready for the vote. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

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

I ask unanimous consent that be the order.

I agree to that amendment, and I thank the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. President, this amendment provides $100 million in additional spending for grants for public transit agencies to enhance security of transit facilities against chemical and biological attacks. The bill already provides $71 million for the Science and Technology Directorate to develop and deploy chemical, biological, and nuclear sensor networks. Public transit facilities are in line to benefit from this appropriation.

The Science and Technology Directorate is piloting chemical and biological sensors in subways that will demonstrate an integrated chemical detection and response system for six subway stations by September of this year.

The amendment would place the Transportation Security Administration in charge of deployment of detectors prematurely, before the research and development has determined the best technology to accomplish the goal. The bill before the Senate which

the subcommittee and the full committee have approved also includes $25 million for the Department to develop standards nationwide for detection sensors.

There is no offset for this additional spending in the amendment, and it would, therefore, cause us to exceed the limitations of the budget resolution. 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, is it not correct that a motion to waive the Budget Act would be debatable and would be debatable under the unanimous consent agreement? My purpose is not to cut off anyone's right to debate under the rules of the Senate or under the terms of the unanimous consent agreement.

I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. President, I yield whatever time remains on this side.

Mr. President, 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, section 871 of the Homeland Security Act allows for an exemption to the Federal Advisory Committee Act so that meetings of advisory committees at the Department of Homeland Security could go forward in emergency and other unforeseen situations.

To form an advisory committee, the Federal Advisory Committee Act requires notice of meetings, publication of meetings in the Federal Register, timely public release of documents associated with the advisory committee meetings, and so forth, including making reading rooms available for members of the public to read the documents that are being discussed by the advisory committee.

The Department of Homeland Security and its representatives, when this legislation was being developed, convinced the committee and the Congress to grant a narrow exemption to the Department to permit it to do its job in emergencies to protect and respond to threats to protect the homeland.

For example, it was suggested if we had another attack, such as we experienced on September 11, and damages were caused to the telecommunications systems of the east coast, the Department would need to convene a committee of experts and people who understood things that needed to be done to put the telecommunications systems back in running order. And they may not have time to put a notice of an advisory committee meeting in the Federal Register, or to give publication or notice of the meeting, or to have what the act requires: timely public release of documents associated with the meeting to be held.

It was the view of the Congress, at the time the act was written creating the Department of Homeland Security, that there were emergency situations that could develop that would require such an exemption.

Also, the Department suggests that it requires the ability to meet with private sector officials in private from time to time, as necessity might require.

The Department, as I understand it, has not invoked this exemption up to this time, so there is no indication that they are abusing the exemption that has been granted them. They are following the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, I assume, in every other respect. We have received no notice. I have no information personally that any violations of the act have occurred.

The Senate passed the Homeland Security Act just months ago, and the Department has been operational only since March, I think, of this year. So to repeal a part of the Homeland Security Act in an appropriations bill that passed the Senate overwhelmingly, and where there has been no indication of abuse, seems to be unnecessary.

So I hope the Senate will reject the amendment that is offered by the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. President, I have no objection to the approval of this amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1375

Mr. President, I have no objection to the adoption of this amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1373

Mr. President, if under the order it is permitted, we are ready to proceed to a vote on the Byrd amendment on which we just debated.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the funding in this amendment is not offset. It adds $100 million to the spending in the bill. It therefore violates the Budget Act.

I made a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act; that the amendment provides spending in excess of the subcommittee 302(b) allocation. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the motion to waive the Budget Act. That is the vote.

I urge Senators to vote no on the motion to waive the Budget Act.

Mr. President, I appreciate the advocacy of the distinguished Senator from Missouri for increased latitude in spending authority by State officials. I agree that greater flexibility is needed to use homeland security funds to meet special security needs such as this.

I hope the committee of jurisdiction will consider a mechanism to allow spending a limited amount of State grant funds as my colleague, Mr. Talent, suggests for ``non-national security special events'' which may present particular security concerns. Certainly, the Maccabi Games, which he

cites as an example, would fall within this category.

I look forward to working with the Senators from Missouri on this important issue.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to advise my good friend from Michigan that I am prepared to accept the amendment and recommend it be approved.

Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas, and we are prepared to accept it. I recommend that it be approved.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, and ask that it be stated.

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

Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment suggesting that historically black colleges and universities be considered as appropriate recipients of certain funds under the Homeland Security Department.

The amendment has been cleared on this side of the aisle, as well as on the other side.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Indiana, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment deals with funding in the Office of Information Analysis. We have reviewed it and recommend that it be approved.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I join in the request of the Senator from West Virginia.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1382

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1383

Mr. President, as I read it, this amendment would single out employees of the new Department of Homeland Security and have different standards for them compared with other executive branch employees.

We have come to appreciate the government-wide ethics standards as representing a level playing field that has been the foundation of other Federal ethic laws as well; a single government-wide system of public financial disclosure requirements where officials, officers, and employees of the Federal Government has been in place for the last 14 years. The government-wide Ethics Act of 1989 created a level playing field for all three branches of Government. This act was a successful bipartisan effort to reform and strengthen Federal ethics standards. The goal of uniformity is a recurring theme in the legislative history of that act.

This amendment would break the equanimity of the current system. When we start treating one Department or Agency different from another, we could end up with a patchwork of different standards, unworkable and unfair, as employees transfer from one Department to another in the Federal Government.

I must oppose the amendment that singles out the new Department of Homeland Security for different treatment than other executive branch agencies and departments.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

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

Mr. President, my understanding is the Senator from Texas has an amendment.

The Senator from Texas has indicated she is not going to offer the amendment. I told several Senators she was, but she is going to speak after the vote.

federal law enforcement training centers

Mr. President, I am very familiar with the institution my friend from Virginia speaks of, VMI, and I assure my colleague that I will work with him to ensure that the necessary resources are provided to it.

Letters of Intent

It is my understanding from the TSA that the $309 million for LOI's in our bill is sufficient to meet the expected demands of airports that are ready to begin formal design and construction.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for bringing this important issue before the Senate today. The committee report that accompanies this Homeland Security appropriations bill calls on the Bureau to review staffing nationwide and to submit a comprehensive deployment plan, to include existing and newly funded positions. We expect the Bureau to use these additional staffing resources to address any pressing needs.

Mr. President, I know of no other amendments that will be offered. I think we are ready for third reading.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.

Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its amendments and request a conference with the House and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. Cochran, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Specter, Mr.

Domenici, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Craig, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kohl, and Mrs. Murray conferees on the part of the Senate.

Has the Senator completed her remarks?

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

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

But not if the Senator has not completed her statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The conferees direct the Under Secretary for Science and

Technology to prepare a program plan for the development of

an antimissile device for commercial aircraft. The plan

should identify the process for delivery and certification of

a prototype and the proposed cost and schedule for such an

activity. The report should be provided to the Committees on

Appropriations within 30 days of enactment of this Act.

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

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

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

I have no objection to the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1327

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

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

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

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

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

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

I move to reconsider the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

I would be happy to yield.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have yielded the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

I am happy to yield.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not have one yet.

Mr. President, I object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the Clinton amendment, the amendments that will next be offered will be the Corzine amendment on chemical security for 20 minutes for Senator Corzine and 10 minutes for Senator Cochran, then the Schumer-Baucus northern security amendment with 25 minutes total for both Senators and Senator Cochran 10 minutes.

I further ask unanimous consent that following the debate in relation to the amendments, the Senate vote, if necessary, in relation to the Clinton amendment No. 1348, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Corzine amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Schumer- Baucus amendment.

I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate for each amendment in the stacked sequence and, further, that no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendments prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished assistant leader from Nevada, and I thank the distinguished Senator from New York and the distinguished Senator from Maine, as well, for the discussion we have had on the issue of formulas. I look forward to joining them in a careful consideration of the issues that have been discussed.

Mr. President, the Senator's amendment will add $80 million to the appropriations for the Office of Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, and it is earmarked specifically to conduct chemical facilities security assessments. Our bill provides a total of $823,700,000 for the information, analysis, and infrastructure protection operating expenses.

The Senator adds his $80 million to that account and earmarks it for chemical facilities. There is no offset for this amendment. Therefore, it violates the Budget Act inasmuch as it surpasses the allocation available to the subcommittee to use in writing this bill. At the appropriate time I will make a point of order that it violates the Budget Act in that it is spending in excess of the subcommittee's allocation. I assume the Senator will move to waive the Budget Act and get the yeas and nays and the vote will occur on the motion to waive the Budget Act. That is my expectation. I am hopeful the Senate will refuse to waive the Budget Act.

What we are doing if we start down this path is not only adding money that is not available to the subcommittee, but we are earmarking specific, critical infrastructure facilities and telling the Department how much money they should spend on each one, or selected ones. It deprives them of the flexibility they need to use the funds they are given under this legislation to assign priorities as they understand the threats. Changing threats could mean a change in the areas where they are concentrating their activities and assessing the security of specific facilities in addition to chemical facilities.

Chemical facilities, incidentally, are considered critical infrastructure and they are defined as such in the bill. So there is no restriction for this agency to use the funds appropriated in this act for the purposes of assessing the security needs of chemical facilities.

I don't know how much time remains for the Senator, but I don't intend to debate this any further. When the time of the Senator is yielded back or used, I will make the point of order.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the amendment offered by Senators Schumer and Baucus increases the funding available for personnel along the northern border by $200 million to meet a level of personnel authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act.

This amendment is identical to the portion of the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, yesterday on which a point of order was made and the motion to waive failed. So the amendment was not agreed to.

I will make the same statements I made yesterday but in a different way--it won't be exactly the same--to explain why the funding made available in the bill has gone a long way toward achieving the goal. In fact, before the end of this fiscal year of 2004, there will be the number of agents anticipated and contemplated by the USA PATRIOT Act, and they are funded in the legislation that is before the Senate now.

Since fiscal year 2002, more than 5,000 additional inspectors, special acts, and Border Patrol agents have been funded by the Congress. The supplemental included $75 million for additional staffing for the northern border and maritime ports of entry. It also included $25 million to transfer 285 Border Patrol agents to the northern border.

The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection reports that over 4,000 inspectors have been added since September 11, 2001. Over 1,000 inspectors have been added to the northern border since 9/11; 613 Border Patrol agents are assigned to the northern border compared to 368 before September 11, 2001.

Commissioner Bonner plans to have 1,000 agents on the northern border by October of this year. When the new agents funded in the bill are counted, there will be over 11,600 Border Patrol agents in fiscal year 2004. This bill includes the maximum number of new border agents that can be absorbed in 1 year.

But for the purpose of our discussion on this specific amendment, I am constrained to point out that the amendment provides spending in excess of our allocation under the Budget Act and, therefore, I am constrained to make a point of order, and do hereby 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 yield all of the time available to me under the order.

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

Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the 2 minutes available to me, if the other side will yield back its time. I think the amendment has been fully debated. It was simply put in order of reservation to protect the Senators who wanted to speak in addition to those 20 minutes that were provided to Senator Corzine and 10 minutes to me under the order. I have no need of expressing myself again on this subject. I yield back the 2 minutes available to me under the order.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, this amendment would exceed by a substantial amount the 302(b) allocation, if it were agreed to, that the subcommittee had to appropriate. In addition to that, the northern border will be fully staffed under the target provided in the USA PATRIOT Act with the funding that is already in this bill that has been previously appropriated.

This motion to waive the Budget Act should be rejected.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I have no objection to the request of the Senator.

The Committee supports the creation of a national, all hazards warning network, and will work in conference to achieve this goal.

That is my expectation.

Let me assure the Senator from New Mexico that I recognize the need for continuation of this project in his State, and that the funding provided to the Department of Homeland Security by this bill would be available for this purpose.

The Senator from New Mexico is correct. Although the Department of Homeland Security is newly constituted and its budget submission is not completely detailed, I have confirmed with the Administration that the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center, or NISAC, receives $23 million in the budget request for the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate. Those funds are approved in the Committee-reported bill.

I join the senior Senator from New Mexico in urging the Department of Homeland Security to utilize the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center and to support partnerships with the DOE national laboratories in New Mexico. I concur that the Nation's critical infrastructure is a potential target for future terrorist attack and that the Department must move swiftly to assess the nature of those threats and secure our critical infrastructure against such attack.

The senior Senator from Oregon is correct; that is the committee's intent.

I agree with the senior Senator from West Virginia and the ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.

the multi-state anti-terrorism information exchange program

Yes, I am aware of the MATRIX program and the promise it has shown in providing State and local first responders with the information they need in their fight against terrorism.

Mr. President, I would like to note for the record the following corrections to Senate Report 108-86 accompanying H.R. 2555 as reported by the Senate, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004.

On page 5, line 3, the dollar amount should read

``$40,000,000.''

On page 47, the second paragraph, the description of local

government should reflect that the Subcommittee amended the

report to include ``borough.''

Mr. President, after discussing the plan for further consideration of this bill, we understand there are a few more amendments that are going to be offered. We have the expectation we can complete action tomorrow on this bill after we consider the amendments that remain to be offered.

I know of no Senators who plan to offer amendments at this time to the bill. If there are any Senators who want to offer amendments, I am prepared to stay as long as Senators want to discuss their amendments. I await the pleasure of the Senate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. on Public Interest and Localism in SR-253.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Wednesday, July 23 at 10 a.m. to consider pending calendar business.

Agenda

Agenda Item 2: S. 391--A bill to enhance ecosystem protection and the range of outdoor opportunities protected by statute in the Skykomish River valley of the State of Washington by designating certain lower- elevation Federal lands as wilderness, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 3: S. 434--A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or exchange all or part of certain parcels of National Forest System land in the State of Idaho and use the proceeds derived from the sale or exchange for National Forest System purposes.

Agenda Item 4: S. 435--A bill to provide for the conveyance by the Secretary of Agriculture of the Sandpoint Federal Building and adjacent land in Sandpoint, Idaho, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 5: S. 452--A bill to require that the Secretary of the Interior conduct a study to identify sites and resources, to recommend alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the Cold War, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 6: S. 714--A bill to provide for the conveyance of a small parcel of Bureau of Land Management land in Douglas County, Oregon, to the county to improve management of and recreational access to the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 9: S. 1003--A bill to clarify the intent of Congress with respect to the continued use of established commercial outfitter hunting camps on the Salmon River.

Agenda Item 10: H.R. 417--To revoke a Public Land Order with respect to certain lands erroneously included in the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge, California.

Agenda Item 11: H.R. 622--To provide for the exchange of certain lands in the Coconino and Tonto National Forests in Arizona, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item 12: H.R. 762--To amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Mineral Leasing Act to clarify the method by which the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture determine the fair market value of certain rights-of-way granted, issued, or renewed under these Acts.

Agenda Item 13: H.R. 1012--To establish the Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

In addition, the Committee may turn to any other measures that are ready for consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a Business Meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 at 2:45 p.m. to hold a hearing on Iraq: Status and Prospects for Reconstruction--Next Steps.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in Executive Session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 23, 2003.

Agenda

S.__, Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2003

Presidential Nominations: Daniel Pipes, of Pennsylvania, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace; Charles Edward Horner, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace; Stephen David Krasner, of California, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace; Eric Dreiband, of Virginia, to be General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Any additional nominees cleared for action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 556, a Bill to Reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 9:00 a.m. in Hart Room 216.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Oversight Hearing: Law Enforcement and Terrorism'' on Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in the Hart Senate Office Building Room 216.

Agenda

The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Washington, DC; The Honorable Asa Hutchinson, Under Secretary for Border & Transportation Security, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct an Executive Nominations hearing on Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 2:00 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Agenda

Panel I: Senators.

Panel II: Rene Alexander Acosta to be Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice and Daniel J. Bryant to be Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, United States Department of Justice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Agriculture, Consolidation and the Smithfield/Farmland Deal'' on Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. in Room 138 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Agenda

Panel I: Senator Tim Johnson.

Panel II: Mr. Joseph Sebring, CEO, John Morrell, Inc., Cincinnati, OH; Mr. William Hughes, Administrator, Division of Agricultural Development, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Madison, WI; Dr. Luther Tweeten, Agriculture Consultant, Columbus, OH; Mr. Russ Kremer, President, Missouri Farmers' Union, Jefferson City, MO; Mr. Patrick Bell, Farmer, Kenansville, NC; and Mr. Michael Stumo, General Counsel, Organization for Competitive Markets, Winstead, CT.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 23, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Enhancing the Role of the Private Sector in Public Transportation.''

Mr. President, yesterday when we presented this bill for consideration, we had opening statements describing the content of the legislation. It is the first appropriations bill that will provide funding for the new Department of Homeland Security. It provides funding in the amount of $29.326 billion for this new Department. It is a billion dollars over the President's budget request but consistent with the allocation under the budget resolution to this subcommittee.

The additional funds are used primarily for training enforcement personnel and developing new equipment

and technologies that can be utilized to better protect our homeland. State and local governments will get grants from the Department to help upgrade their capabilities in this area, not just against the war against terror and defeating terrorism but in dealing with natural disasters as well.

The 22 agencies that previously existed that have responsibilities in this area have been folded into one organization under this new Department headed up by Secretary Tom Ridge. We are hopeful we can complete action on this bill by Wednesday evening, and we will be able, then, to start working to iron out differences between the House and Senate bills so when we come back from the break in August we can pass this bill and do our part to contribute to the timely consideration of all appropriations bills in time for the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1. We have asked Senators to let us know what amendments they intend to offer. We hope we can handle these amendments expeditiously.

There was one amendment laid down yesterday by Senator Byrd that would add over a billion dollars to different accounts in the bill. We can take that amendment up. I am advised that Senator Byrd will be coming to discuss that amendment and other issues that are involved in this legislation later in the day. Until that amendment can be disposed of, we have an opportunity for other amendments to be called up. We can set aside the Byrd amendment and consider other amendments if it is agreed to.

I looked at the list. There are 29 amendments that we know about. Most of them are being offered by Senators on the Democratic side of the aisle. We hope we can have the cooperation of all Senators to expeditiously consider the legislation and not drag out the consideration of amendments.

I thank my friend, the Senator from Nevada, for working with us to look at ways to expedite the consideration of this bill. I appreciate his assistance, advice, and counsel in this process.

Mr. President, we appreciate the advice and information that the distinguished Democratic whip has offered us. We do hope Senators will come now and call up amendments. In the expectation that will be the case, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we appreciate the Senator from Nevada bringing this issue to the attention of the Senate by offering this amendment. His amendment goes directly to the provision of the bill that provides funds for discretionary grants to high threat urban areas. In the bill, we provide an appropriation for this program of $750 million. These are discretionary grants to be made by the Office for Domestic Preparedness to those who are considered by the Department to be in need of these funds to better protect the security of these specific urban areas.

This is a discretionary program, and we are hoping that by defining the criteria to be considered by the Department, we help encourage the selection of sites. But we don't pretend to make those decisions here in the Senate or in the Congress. These are administrative decisions. If we got into the business of deciding which areas of the country, specifically which urban areas of the country should be entitled to these funds, it would be a very unwieldy process.

What we have done is to try to define the kinds of characteristics that should be taken into account by the administration as they make decisions in the awarding of these grants.

Vulnerability is one of those criteria. I will read now from the committee report, page 48, where this grant program is described. It says:

The Committee expects the [Office for Domestic

Preparedness] to allocate these funds no later than 30 days

after enactment of the act. No less than 80 percent of

discretionary grants provided to any State shall be obligated

to local governments within 45 days of the State's receipt of

funds. In making grants to State and local governments, the

Secretary of Homeland Security shall take into consideration

credible threat, vulnerability, population, cooperation of

multiple jurisdictions in preparing domestic preparedness

plans, and identified needs of public agencies. The grants

may be made to single or multiple jurisdictions in the same

urban area.

It is our judgment that the inclusion of the word ``vulnerability'' and also the statement with regard to population gives the Secretary the discretion to consider popularity as a tourist destination to be a vulnerability or characteristic that is consistent with vulnerability. Large hotels, as the Senator from Nevada describes, are, of course, vulnerable. A transient population that is not acquainted with the area as a resident might be could make them more vulnerable to a terrorist act. And while obviously the Senator has a legitimate concern for these communities and wants to be sure they are considered when the Department divides this money among other municipalities and local government agencies around the country, we think it is provided for already in the bill.

More importantly, to go back to the statement I made at the outset of my

response to the Senator, we don't need to get into the business of trying to convert this discretionary program into one where the Congress, by massaging the language and putting in additional criteria, ends up taking the discretion away or limiting the discretion that ought to be exercised by the Department. Many characteristics are going to be considered, but we hope we won't try to tie the hands of the administrator so tightly that this program loses its significance.

High threat urban areas, we recognize, are entitled to Federal support in managing the threats to those communities, and it may cost more than States or local jurisdictions can manage to more fully and successfully protect the security interests of people in those areas.

I am hopeful the Senate will reject the amendment. Specifically, the amendment is an add-on of $20 million without any offset. So it is subject to a point of order and would have to overcome that point of order. The Senate could waive the point of order, could approve a motion to waive, but that would be one way to join issue with this.

I think our discussion here--the Senator's comments and the response I have made--can be interpreted as a colloquy that clarifies the authority the Secretary has to give consideration to the special vulnerability of cities and other localities that have a high degree of tourist population. He specifically mentioned Las Vegas. I am thinking specifically, too, about the gulf coast of Mississippi where we have a large number of tourists who come visit the resort areas and the tourists hotels, other attractions along the Mississippi gulf coast.

That area might very well also qualify for consideration as a vulnerable area for funding under this provision. I think the Senator points out something the Secretary and the Office for Domestic Preparedness specifically ought to consider as they make these grants to so-called high-threat urban areas. These are discretionary, but we think the criteria we have listed and described in the committee report and in the colloquy we have had on this amendment the Senator offered will help guide the Department in making these grants and enable them to fully consider the vulnerability of areas with high density or high levels of tourist population. We think that would be appropriate.

Yes.

Seven hundred and fifty million dollars.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished Senator from Nevada. We will continue to work with him to be sure that we take into account the observations he has made, and the urban areas in his State will be dealt with fairly by the Office for Domestic Preparedness in the consideration of the allocation of grants from this fund.

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 am going to propound two unanimous consent requests which we understand have been cleared on both sides of the aisle, and I make this request at the suggestion of the majority leader.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee substitute amendment be agreed to and considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment, provided that no points of order be waived by virtue of this agreement; provided further that the amendments that are now pending be modified so they are considered as pending to the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:30, the Senate stand in recess until 3:30 this afternoon. This would allow all Senators to attend an important briefing this afternoon, in addition to the party lunches at 12:30.

I have no objection to that and so modify my request in that way.

Mr. President, we are on the Homeland Security appropriations bill. We have two amendments pending for consideration. It is my understanding a briefing is being held right now and Senators are expected to be in the Chamber soon to either debate these amendments or make other comments about the bill.

We encourage those who do have amendments to let us know about them. We have some indication that there are amendments that will be offered before we complete action on this bill, but we intend to push ahead and work as late tonight as the leader permits and complete action on this bill tomorrow, if possible. That is our intention. We hope to have the cooperation of all Senators.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, first, I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his cooperation in the development of this bill that is now before the Senate. His assistance and participation in the hearings, the review of the President's budget request, our meetings with administration officials to fully understand the priorities as they saw them, and, in many ways, his experience and judgment in helping guide the development of this bill were very essential to the success we had in getting it to this point. His support in getting it through the committee and subcommittee was essential and very important.

This amendment, as the distinguished Senator has pointed out, will add money for many different areas of spending in the legislation that we have presented. Of course, it is because there are many needs there. There are many ways we can allocate and spend resources to try to upgrade our capability of protecting our Nation's homeland. So there is no end to the list of ways we could spend additional funds.

What we have tried to do, though, is be guided by the limitations that have been imposed on the committee by the budget resolution. We have a limited amount of money to spend in this bill. In fact, the amount we have been allocated to spend is $1 billion more than the President's budget request that was submitted to Congress earlier. So this bill provides $29.326 billion. We have tried to allocate it among all the competing needs that we have come to understand through our review of the budget request and the information we have been able to obtain as to what our needs are and what the highest priorities are, and that is what this bill reflects: the judgment of the Appropriations Committee of the priorities that exist and how we can best use the amount of money that is allocated to this committee for this next fiscal year, keeping in mind that we have already appropriated funds in the year we are in now, fiscal year 2003.

We have also added a substantial amount of money for homeland security in the supplemental appropriations bill that was just recently passed by the Senate and signed by the President. Therefore, since this amendment proposes to add another $1.75 billion to the bill that is before us with no offsetting suggestion of where the money would come from, I will be constrained to make a point of order against the amendment because it provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's allocation in violation of the Budget Act. Before doing that, let me make a few observations about the Senator's comments on some specific provisions in the bill.

Facilities along the land borders, which the Senator discussed, are maintained under the General Services Administration, and funds for upgrading, maintaining, and replacing facilities are funded through the General Services Administration and the appropriations bill that has that as part of its jurisdiction.

This committee does not have GSA jurisdiction. What we do have is the responsibility of trying to accommodate the deployment of facilities to implement the U.S. visitor and immigrant status indicator technology. This is a new program. It is to be deployed upon land ports of entry, and funds are included in the committee bill for that purpose.

In addition, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has undertaken to hire additional inspectors to be deployed on these borders, to enforce the new rules and to better protect us from people who come across the border who may be a threat to the security of our homeland.

Our indications from the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection are that over 4,000 inspectors have been added to the workforce since September 11, 2001. That has increased coverage at these ports of entry by 25 percent. Over 2,600 inspectors are on the northern border, compared to about 1,600 prior to September 11. There are 613 Border Patrol agents who are assigned to the northern border compared to 368 before September 11. Commissioner Bonner says he plans to have 1,000 agents on the northern border by October of this year. So when the new agents who are funded in this bill are counted, are included, there will be over 11,600 Border Patrol agents in fiscal year 2004. That is funding already in this bill.

We added additional staffing in the wartime supplement. We put in the supplemental $75 million for additional northern border and maritime ports of entry personnel. This was in addition to the money that was previously appropriated for this fiscal year for new personnel. We also included $25 million to transfer Border Patrol agents to the northern border. It is an important new undertaking, and we are cooperating with the administration in trying to meet those needs.

The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection can only hire so many people in any one year. This bill includes the maximum number of new border agents who can be absorbed in one year.

We also think it is important to preserve the Department's flexibility to assess its staffing needs nationwide. We should not come in and say they have to hire 1,000 more than they planned to hire this year. We have to leave to the good judgment of the administrators how they can absorb and find the qualified people to hire, how they can train them in their new duties and deploy them to the places where they can be used. I think it would be a mistake at this point for the Senate to try to superimpose our judgment about a detail of that kind.

We have the same goal. We are on the same team with this administration. We have to listen to the statements and suggestions they make to us about the funds they can use and what they need to do their job within the limits that we have. We have to allocate the funds according to the priorities as we see them.

Up to this point in time, it is the judgment of the committee at least that the funding we have made available for border security agencies, for personnel to carry out the missions of the USA PATRIOT Act, which the Senator mentioned, and other authorizing legislation is funded in the bill to the extent that it is possible to be funded in the bill.

In the case of the Transportation Security Administration, the additional funding suggested in the amendment is $100 million for screening of air cargo. First, the authorizing committee assessed the needs for new authorities and how the responsibilities for screening air cargo would be changed to meet the new threats. Congress responded by passing the Air Cargo Security Improvement Act, S. 165. It authorizes the development and deployment of something called a known shipper database, strengthening security enforcement and compliance measures for indirect air carriers and implementing mandatory security programs for all cargo carriers.

The Transportation Security Administration has undertaken a comprehensive, strategic plan for air cargo security. It is based on threat assessment and risk management.

As I understand it, there are three elements to the approach of the Transportation Security Administration. They strengthen the current known shipper program to verify shipper legitimacy. They have developed a cargo prescreening and profiling system that targets shipments based on a set of guidelines to indicate which shipments may be suspicious. They have a targeted inspection system to identify suspicious cargo utilizing explosive detection systems, explosive trace detection, canine detection, and other approved methods for inspecting air cargo.

This comprehensive approach is consistent with the Department's approach in securing containers that cross our borders by all modes of transportation, and the funding that was requested in the President's bill has been respected. The bill we have before the Senate provides $60 million. Ironically, it is $30 million more than the President requested for this function.

The Transportation Security Administration, according to my understanding, can use this money. But this amendment that has been offered by the Senator from West Virginia would add an additional $100 million in addition to what is already in the bill. I am not sure the administration can use that and use it effectively.

The amendment has additional money for grants for public transit agencies, for enhancing security against chemical and biological threats. We already have $71 million for the Science and Technology Directorate to develop and deploy chemical, biological, and nuclear sensor networks throughout the country, including public transit facilities. That would duplicate and be over and above what is already being spent to try to make sure that we deploy the right kind of defenses to this kind of threat.

Again, I think it is important for us to work with the administration and say: Okay, we have so much money that has been allocated to us to spend for homeland security. How can we best spend that money right now? How much do they need this year? What can they use? What are the highest priorities? Where do we need to spend the money first?

The amendment the Senator has offered also increases port security grants by $460 million, as he pointed out. We already have $150 million in the bill for port security grants, and this is in addition to $365 million provided in 2002 and 2003.

Of the $365 million already provided by the Congress, only $260 million has been obligated by the administration. So think about this: We have a proposal to add $460 million to an account where the money is still there and has not been obligated that has previously been appropriated. How much can be spent is something that has to be taken into account as well, not how much we can appropriate. That is not going to be a measure of the success of this bill or whether or not it has been thoughtfully expended to protect our security. We have to make sure it can be used and that it can be used thoughtfully, consistent with a plan that has been developed by the administration.

The Transportation Security Administration can only obligate about $150 million a year because assessments of ports have to be conducted, they have to be given some kind of priority, and then an application process by the ports for the funds has to be analyzed, assessed, and careful decisions need to be made. It cannot be just a rush to apply for a grant: Hey, they have a new fund in Washington. If you are a port director, if you get your application in now and put pressure on the administration, you may get some funds.

Will it be consistent with the overall national plan? Will it be targeted where the threats are the most imminent and most troublesome, where the money really needs to be spent? Are

other agencies going to be able to take up the slack in helping to deal with threats that are known to exist in our ports?

There is a capacity only to spend so much money at one time. That is the point. The rush to spend money can put the agency in disarray, can give a false sense of security to the people in the country, saying, look, we spent $460 million in addition to what had already been appropriated. But that may not actually help improve our security.

There is no doubt there will be a need for these funds later. There will be a need to increase security at our ports over and above what we are doing in this fiscal year or next fiscal year--and not just in ports but in all modes of transportation. But we need to take a measured, thoughtful approach, and weigh the funding provided for the security of our Nation's homeland security needs. That is what we tried to do, take a balanced approach and make an assessment based on limitations we have and the realities we face.

There is a proposal in this amendment to add $70 million to the Coast Guard operating expenses account to increase the total funding of the Coast Guard. The bill already provides $4.719 billion for Coast Guard operating expenses. This is $12 million more than the President has asked for operating expenses, excluding environmental compliance and restoration, and reserve training, which are funded separately.

Included in the bill for acquisition, construction, and improvements is the amount of $1.035 billion which is $238 million above the President's budget request.

Funding to implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) was not requested in the President's budget because that Act had not been passed until after the President's budget was prepared. No request was made for funding to implement MTSA in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental either. We know funding for the implementation of the MTSA is a priority for the Coast Guard. If we had additional funds available, we would agree to increased funding in fiscal year 2004. But the bill has been very generous to the Coast Guard. We believe funding for the implementation of MTSA should be included in next year's budget request by the President.

The Office for Domestic Preparedness is targeted in this amendment with a funding increase. Mr. President, $729.5 million is provided in this amendment to increase funding for grants to State and local governments.

One of the first calls I made when I realized it was going to be my obligation to chair this subcommittee was to Warren Rudman, our former colleague from New Hampshire, who has been, with Gary Hart, part of a study to assess our homeland security needs. They had published reports and made some presentations in New York, Council on Foreign Relations, and other places.

One of the things I remember former Senator Rudman suggesting to me is, it is impossible to know precisely what is needed and how much it will cost. That is something I have kept in mind.

The fact is, this is not an exact science. We have to use our judgment, make choices, understand that we cannot do everything at once. What we are trying to do is maintain a base level of preparedness through this program.

The Department is going to be better able to assess true needs once the States have had a chance to submit their updated homeland security strategies. We cannot just assume right now the States can identify all of the areas where they need to spend the money, which local governments continue to have needs, and which ones ought to be funded first.

In my judgment, we run the risk of being irresponsible if we increase funding over and above an amount that can logically and systematically be provided through the grant program to State and local governments.

We will have provided through the funds recommended in this bill almost $9 billion through the Office for Domestic Preparedness and the firefighters assistance grants since September 11. A lot of money has been spent already. In addition to those expenditures and the funding in this bill, the Senator suggests we ought to spend another $729.5 million.

We are suggesting the funds appropriated in this bill, in this account, for this fiscal year, are a responsible level of funding for first responders, given the other needs and other demands that come under the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security.

The amendment also suggests we earmark $80 million for information analysis and infrastructure assessment, a directorate, to conduct assessments for chemical facilities. I am impressed with the concerns reflected in this suggestion. We do not have funding made available to individual industries involved in the chemical business to make these assessments. I am not enough of an expert in that business to know the assessments that have already been made and the security arrangements that many of these businesses and industries already have. One thing we need to keep in mind is that self-interest has motivated business and industries, and anyone who owns a business or a home should do what they can to protect themselves, to be sure their workers are protected, to be sure their families are protected. We all feel that obligation. It is not like everyone has been assuming they had no responsibilities for self-protection.

Businesses and industries have done a great deal, invested huge sums of money, to protect their own assets.

The suggestion is we need to give them more money to do some more analysis, to do some more assessments.

There may be a need for additional critical infrastructure assessment; however, this bill already provides $293.9 million for key asset identification, field assessments of critical infrastructures, and key asset protection implementation to help guide and support the development of protective measures to improve the security of industrial facilities and assets.

Of the amount provided for critical infrastructures, $199.1 million is made available for critical infrastructure and vulnerability assessments of the highest priority infrastructures and assets. But we need the benefit of the advice of the administration, those who are in charge of the programs, to tell us what those are. This amendment that is offered by my friend from West Virginia says it is the chemical industry. That is the only earmark in this part of the bill--$80 million for chemical facilities. There may be other facilities that are more vulnerable or that would cause more damage and displacement of American businesses than the chemical facilities would if they were under a threat of terrorist attack.

The priorities that have to be made and assigned have to be based on a combination of factors: threat, vulnerability, and risk analysis. And we have to leave that up to the administration. I don't feel competent to make that kind of decision. I don't know of any Senator, if this amendment were to be voted on this afternoon, who could just walk in here and decide should that be an earmark or should it not. But it is folded into this big amendment and we are asked to decide whether to target $80 million for just these kinds of facilities. Who is to know whether that is a good decision or not, if they have not been through the hearings, they have not had the opportunity to assess the other options?

So I think it is an unfair choice that we present to other Senators, to have them make that decision right now. Why can't the administration make that decision? I think they are better suited to make that decision than we are right now. We have to work with them and not make prejudgments.

The prioritization is going to be based on a lot of factors. There are 14 critical infrastructure areas--including the chemical sector--5 key asset categories that further break down into about 99 distinct segments, all of which must be considered based on changing threat assessments. So this is not necessarily an effective way to improve our Nation's security, just to earmark money for one particular kind of industry requiring a specific amount of funds to be spent. Why not $180 million? Why not just $40 million? Where does $80 million come from? I don't know. Who knows?

So without the corresponding analysis that helps advise the Senate, it is a mistake for us to be asked to make this kind of choice.

We are telling the terrorist organizations, aren't we, that we are going to spend the money in this sector? We are going to target this sector and emphasize it and make it a high priority, but

not the others? Is that a good way to make decisions in this area or should we let the administration and the infrastructure protection experts decide where the threats really are? What does the intelligence show as to where the threats are? These need to be taken into account.

This amendment, adding $1.75 billion to the bill, violates the Budget Act because it does not offset the spending, it exceeds the subcommittee's allocation that is given to us, and at the appropriate time I will be constrained to make a point of order against the amendment.

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

Mr. President, I announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a business meeting on July 24, 2003, in SR-328A at 11 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to mark up H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.

subcommittee on energy

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 22, 2003, at 2:00 p.m. to conduct a hearing on the nominations of Mr. Mark C. Brickell, of New York, to be director, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight; Ms. Alicia R. Castaneda, of the District of Columbia, to be a member of the Board of Directors, Federal Housing Finance Board; and Mr. Thomas J. Curry, of Massachusetts, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 22, at 10:00 a.m.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on issues related to forest health problems in our Nation's forests.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on Reauthorizing Head Start: Preparing Children to Succeed in School and in Life during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 10 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List:

Panel I: Senators;

Panel II: Steven M. Colloton to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit;

Panel III: P. Kevin Castel to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York; Sandra J. Feuerstein to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; Richard J. Holwell to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York; H. Brent McKnight to be United States District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina; R. David Proctor to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama; Stephen C. Robinson to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``The WorldCom Case: looking at Bankruptcy and Competition Issues'' on Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 2 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List:

Panel I: Richard Thornburgh, Esquire, Bankruptcy Examiner, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP, Washington, DC;

Panel II: William Barr, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Verizon Communications, Washington, DC; Nicholas Katzenbach, Board Member, MCI Telecommunications, Ashburn, Virginia; Marcia L. Goldstein, Esquire, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, New York; Morton Bahr, President, Communications Workers of America, Washington, DC; Douglas G. Baird, Vice-Chair, National Bankruptcy Conference, Chicago, Illinois; Mark A. Neporent, Chief Operating Officer, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., New York, New York.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on today, July 22, 2003 from 11 a.m.--1 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I am pleased to present for the Senate's consideration today the fiscal year 2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act.

This bill provides appropriations for the first time directly to the new Department of Homeland Security which was created by law last November. The September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon here in Washington dramatically illustrated the need for more effective protection of our homeland.

On March 1 of this year, this new Department of Homeland Security was formally established. Its mission is to reorganize the Federal Government's

efforts to prevent terrorist attacks, to reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism, and to deal more effectively with the damages that are caused by natural disasters as well.

The Department has administrative control over and responsibility for 22 previously existing Federal agencies and an estimated 180,000 employees.

The bill we present today provides total new budget authority for fiscal year 2004 of $29.326 billion to fund the Department. In addition, an estimated $4.8 billion in collections from immigration services and from air passenger and carrier fees paid by the users will be available to the Department for fiscal year 2004.

This bill is $1 billion over the President's budget request. The bill recommends that this additional amount of money be used to increase funding to assist State and local first responders, to enhance aviation security, to better protect critical infrastructures, to more effectively secure our ports and waterways, to hire and train additional border investigators and inspectors, and to establish the surveillance capability to protect our northern border.

As the Presiding Officer well knows, this is a big country. You cannot possibly build a wall around it. We have over 95,000 miles of coastline. The northern border of our country stretches a distance of 5,500 miles. Our southern border with Mexico is approximately 2,000 miles in length, all present very real and very important challenges to the security protection effort of our homeland.

For fiscal year 2003, and with the additional appropriations recommended by this bill for fiscal year 2004, Congress will have provided over $3 billion for the security of our Nation's ports and waterways and over $10 billion for security of all sectors of transportation through the Transportation Security Administration.

Through the firefighter assistance and Office of Domestic Preparedness grant programs alone, the Congress will have provided almost $9 billion since September 11, 2001, to enhance the capacity of the Nation's first responders.

To further explain part of the uses that are expected by the committee for these funds, I invite the attention of the Senate to page 9 of the committee's report that we have submitted to accompany this bill. It says, ``Pursuant to the President's National Strategy for Homeland Security, the Secretary is to provide to the Committee, no later than April 30, 2004, a report that updates the progress that is made to: clearly define standards and guidelines for Federal, State, and local government emergency preparedness and response in such areas as training, interoperable communications systems, and response equipment; an estimate of the costs of the unmet needs of State and local governments for fiscal years 2004--2008 in meeting those standards and guidelines.''

This illustrates the fact that, first of all, we know you cannot transform our country's homeland security infrastructure overnight; it is going to take time. This bill marks the beginning of the effort and a response to the President's call for the strengthening of our homeland security capability through the establishment of a new Department, which was undertaken by Congress through its legislative committees that actually wrote the law that provided the legal authority for this new Department to begin its work. This bill provides the money the Department needs. It is not all the money that can be spent. It is not all the money that everybody suggests is needed. But it is a very important and generous investment in the effort to begin the work that has to be done to reach the goals we all share.

As the Committee report suggests it is going to take a while, too, for local governments and local responders to upgrade their capabilities, through training, through exercises, through new state- of-the-art equipment and communications equipment, and other assets that are necessary to fully reach our goals. Working together with a better sense of cooperation between State, local, and Federal Government agencies, I am confident that we are going to see a dramatic improvement made. This is another positive step forward.

I am hopeful that Senators will appreciate the fact that we want to hear their advice. We had hearings where we not only heard other Senators' suggestions about steps that ought to be taken and the dollar amount of funds that ought to be appropriated, but we also heard from administration officials whose job it is to manage this new Department. We had a series of six hearings on these subjects. The Homeland Security Act established four new directorates under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security and its Secretary. Agencies were reorganized, such as the Customs Service. Some disappeared, such as the Immigration and Naturalization Service. However, the components and activities of that previous agency are included under the control and authority of the new Department in a way that we hope will make it a more effective organization and those agencies better able to do their job.

But the challenges are quite enormous, as we all recognize. There have been, in the course of our hearings, discoveries made of the challenges, in terms of how many people there are to keep up with who are undocumented aliens within the United States, for example. That number has increased from 3 million in 1990 to an estimated 9 million now. Forty percent of those people originally gained entry into the United States legally, but they never left when either the time expired for their visa or the end of the legal authority of their presence came about. Attempting to identify and track those people, some of whom may be threats to our security and many of whom may not be threats to our national security, illustrates the challenges we face.

We are embracing in this bill the development of new technologies to help us identify, through automation and new technologies, friendly vessels that come close to our shores, that enter our ports, in a way that you can automatically know whether this ship is certified and licensed to enter that port or not.

The Coast Guard is included as a complete entity within the new Department of Homeland Security and is taking on new roles. So we have our challenge from the President to support these efforts. I think Congress is responding, as it should, with a generous bill for appropriations of funds needed to start this Department off on its way.

We will continue to monitor the use of these funds, as we suggested in the report. We are going to require to be kept advised of the progress made to achieve the goals. We will have oversight hearings. If we see there are needs that arise that have not been funded, we will bring those to the attention of the Senate. Working with our friends in the House, we will go to conference with the House upon the passage of this bill and work out the differences between our two bills and present the final result to the President for his signature.

I am hopeful that the Senate will support this bill. I am confident it will help achieve our goal of a strengthened and much-improved homeland defense against terrorism and natural disasters, as well.

Before I yield the floor, I would like to point out that I certainly appreciate and acknowledge the good assistance of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, who is the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee and who serves as the ranking Democrat of this subcommittee, for his cooperation and support during the committee's consideration and development of this bill.

The following is a detailed summary of the bill's major funding recommendations.

For security, enforcement, and investigations activities of the Department funded under Title III of the bill, $19.5 billion is recommended. Included in this amount is a total of $8.1 billion for the Department's two new bureaus--the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Also recommended is $5.4 billion for the Transportation Security Administration; $6.8 billion for the Coast Guard; and $1.1 billion for the United States Secret Service.

For assessments, preparedness, and recovery activities of the Department funded under Title IV of the bill, $8.3 billion is recommended. This includes $3.6 billion for emergency preparedness and response activities; $823 million for the Department's new Information

Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate; $201 million for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; and $3.6 billion for the Office for Domestic Preparedness.

In addition, the bill recommends $494 million for Departmental operations and oversight; $229 million for the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services; and $866 million for research and development activities of the Department's Science and Technology Directorate.

The bill recommends $8.1 billion for the defense of the nation's borders and investigations and enforcement of our immigration and customs laws.

Included in this amount is an increase to establish the first permanent northern border surveillance air wing.

The bill also provides $380 million for the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology project, known as US VISIT. This automated entry/exit system is one of the Department's top priorities. It will track the entry and exit of all non-immigrant travelers, making it easier for legitimate travelers while making it more difficult for those who may intend to do us harm.

The bill recommends $4.9 billion for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, which supports inspection activities and patrolling of our borders.

As I previously stated, the United States has 5,525 miles of border with Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Our maritime border includes 95,000 miles of shoreline. Each year, more than 500 million people cross the border into the United States, some 330 million who are non- citizens. There are 118,129,875 vehicles that enter the United States annually and 16 million cargo containers.

To assist the Bureau in its task to protect our border, the bill provides an increase of $74.3 million for additional personnel, $41 million of which is for 570 additional border agents.

In addition, the bill provides full funding of $12.1 million for the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. A safe and secure supply chain is a critical part of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection's work to keep our country safe. Through this initiative, the Bureau is committed to working closely with companies whose good business practices ensure supply chain security as well as compliance with trade laws.

It also provides the requested increase of $61.7 million 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 traffic. A more secure maritime trade infrastructure will help ensure the continued smooth flow of merchandise through seaports.

The bill recommends $2.8 billion for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which supports investigations, intelligence, detention and removal activities, and provides a safe and secure work environment for Federal facilities. To assist the Bureau in carrying out these tasks, the bill provides an increase of $28.3 million for additional investigative and intelligence personnel.

The bill provides an increase of $66.2 million for the establishment of the first permanent air surveillance wing on the northern border. The Nation is vulnerable to illegal incursions by terrorists, drug smugglers and other criminals. The establishment of this air wing will allow the Department to extend its reach to an at-risk area of the Nation's airspace.

The bill also provides a transfer of $424 million from the General Services Administration, Federal Buildings Fund, for the Federal Protective Service, which is the same as the President's budget, to ensure a safe and secure workplace for Federal employees.

For the Transportation Security Administration, responsible for ensuring security across the U.S. transportation system, including our Nation's airports, railways, highways, and waterways, the bill recommends total funding of $5.4 billion.

For security enhancements to our Nation's aviation sector, an increase of $307 million over the President's budget request has been provided. A major component of this increase is $150.5 million for the purchase of baggage explosive detection systems and $309 million to make security improvements at our Nation's airports, including the permanent installation of these detection systems in the airport to move them out of airport lobbies. In addition, the bill provides funding at the President's requested level for passenger and baggage screeners at airports.

Also provided for the security of aviation is $600 million for the Federal Air Marshals program, and $25 million for Federal flight deck officer training for commercial pilots who voluntarily apply to carry firearms in the cockpit.

To further enhance TSA efforts to secure cargo placed on aircraft, $30 million is provided for the screening of air cargo.

For maritime and surface transportation security activities, the bill provides $150 million for port security grants, $30 million for the continuation of operation safe commerce to better secure cargo entering the Nation's three largest ports, and $25 million for trucking industry grants to provide for safe travel on our Nation's highways.

To further improve transportation security, $130.2 million is provided for research and development of the latest technologies to detect and deter terrorist attacks, including $45 million for research and development of next generation explosive detection systems and $30 million for research and development of new technologies to screen air cargo.

The bill recommends $6.88 billion in total funding for the United States Coast Guard, which supports the President's request for search and rescue activities, fisheries enforcement, drug interdiction, and defense-related activities. Included in this amount are increases for the Integrated Deepwater Systems, ``Deepwater'', Maritime Safety and Security Teams, and the Automatic Identification System.

The bill provides $702 million for the Deepwater program, which is $202 million above the President's budget. Deepwater missions cover the spectrum of the Coast Guard's responsibilities, including: homeland security, search and rescue, alien migrant interdiction, drug interdiction, fisheries protection, and marine environmental protection.

Deepwater was conceptualized as a 20-year program at a cost of $500 million a year, to recapitalize the Coast Guard's aging assets and fully integrate the communications capability of all ships and aircraft. In order for Deepwater to be completed in 20 years, the annual funding would have to include inflation, which has not been the case. If the recent pattern of under-funding continues, the projected time-frame for completion could increase to 30 years, thereby increasing the total cost to the government. Fiscal year 2004 funding of $702 million will go a long way toward getting Deepwater back on schedule for completion in 20 years.

The bill provides $134 million for the Rescue 21 program, which is the same as the President's budget. Rescue 21 is effectively the maritime 9-1-1 system for mariners in distress, designed to monitor distress calls, alert response assets, and coordinate search and rescue responses. This funding will improve the Coast Guard's effectiveness and enhance mission delivery of marine safety, law enforcement, environmental protection, and homeland security.

The bill provides an increase of $40 million for the Automatic Identification System, which is similar to an air traffic control system that transmits important safety and security information concerning vessels back to a shore-based receiver. This provides the Coast Guard with the capability to track vessels throughout the coastal zone and provide greater security to the Nation's ports.

To further strengthen the capacity of the Nation's first responders to prepare for and respond to possible terrorist threats, the bill provides $3.638 billion for the Office for Domestic Preparedness.

Included in this amount is $1.2 billion for State and local basic formula grants; $500 million for State and local law enforcement terrorism prevention grants; and $750 million for high-threat urban area discretionary grants.

The bill also provides $750 million for firefighter assistance grants, to remain as a stand-alone program.

The bill does not recommend the consolidation of funding for emergency management performance grants into the Office for Domestic Preparedness grant programs, as proposed in the budget. An appropriation of $165 million for this grant program is provided through the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate.

The bill recommends $3.6 billion in total funding for the operations of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, fully supporting the fiscal year 2004 budget for preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery activities; public health programs, to include the Strategic National Stockpile; and information technology services and regional operations.

The bill provides $1.9 billion for disaster relief as proposed in the President's budget. The disaster relief fund through the Department of Homeland Security will continue to operate the programs formerly run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to assist victims in presidentially-declared major disasters and emergencies.

The bill provides $200 million for flood map modernization activities to modernize and digitize the Nation's flood maps. These maps are outdated and in some cases not permanently documented, as the digitization process would provide. Fiscal year 2004 funding will ensure that the Department stays on track to provide up-to-date flood maps for the Nation within 5 years.

The bill continues the Emergency Management Performance Grants, ``EMPG'', at $165 million, and does not recommend shifting this program to the Office for Domestic Preparedness. EMPG is a State matching grant program designed to assist States and local communities in all-hazards planning and response, and is therefore more appropriately administered through the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate. In Mississippi, the number of counties with emergency management programs has increased from 43 to 65 in the last three years because of funds made available through EMPG. The same is true for numerous other States, indicating the importance of this program to provide communities with the capability to develop localized emergency management programs.

The bill recommends $823.7 million for activities of the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection directorate to identify and assess threats to the homeland, map threat information against current vulnerabilities, issue warnings, and take preventive and protective action.

A critical component of this directorate is the ability to provide the resources to secure our Nation's critical infrastructures from catastrophic events. In order to achieve this, $293.9 million is provided for critical infrastructure and key asset identification, field assessments of critical infrastructures, and key asset protection implementation to help guide development of protective measures to harden facilities and assets.

For the intelligence and warning functions of the Department of Homeland Security, $101.7 million is provided to guide collection, assessment, evaluation, and prioritization of all intelligence information.

As part of the effort by IAIP to better secure not only physical assets but also cyber assets, the bill includes $98.5 million for the integration of physical and cyber infrastructure monitoring and coordination for cyber security.

A total of $866 million is recommended for the research and development activities of the Department's Science and Technology Directorate.

This directorate is tasked with the centralization of research and development department-wide and is provided $64 million in support of conventional missions of the Department's agencies and bureaus.

The bill also provides $55 million for the establishment of a university-based system to enhance and strengthen the efforts of homeland security on our Nation's campuses.

As the Department works to monitor and detect cyber attacks by terrorist organizations within the auspices of the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection directorate, Science and Technology is responsible for the research and development of the most appropriate technologies for next generation cyber threat characterization, detection, and origination. For these activities, the bill provides $18 million.

A total of $70 million is made available for the technical support working group responsible for the rapid development and prototyping of new technologies in support of homeland security.

For research and development of critical infrastructure security assurance, $72 million is provided, of which up to $60 million is made available for research, development, testing, and evaluation of an anti-missile system for commercial aircraft. There also is a great need for the development of standards and protocols for equipment that is used in the field for detecting, mitigating, and recovering from terrorist attacks and funds are available for this purpose.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business during which Senators may speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, this amendment is redundant and unnecessary. It, in effect, requires a report to committees of Congress every 30 days by the administration on operations in Iraq.

The supplemental that the Congress passed in April just before the Easter recess providing fiscal year 2003 funds for the Iraqi operations required that many reports be submitted to committees of Congress. As a matter of fact, within 5 days of the transfer of funds from the Iraqi Freedom account, a report is sent to the Appropriations and Defense Committees of the House and Senate advising the Congress of how these funds are going to be spent.

No such reporting has been required of recent operations elsewhere in the world. For example, during the Clinton administration, no such reports were required for operations in Somalia or Bosnia or Haiti. Nor were they required during the operations in Afghanistan or Kosovo.

This report duplicates information the Department of Defense is already routinely providing through congressional hearings and briefings for Members of Congress and press organizations, news organizations that have access to the regular briefings at the Department of Defense.

The reports on the cost of Iraq and the number of personnel serving in the

region are widely available. We all know that representatives of news organizations are all over Iraq gathering information, making reports every day on television through their news organizations back to the United States and around the world. There are no secrets.

There were members of the press involved and personally present during all of the military operations and, to a great extent, Ambassador Bremer and General Abizaid still make information available to those representatives of news organizations who are seeking information about what is going on in Iraq. We all have access that is unparalleled and truly unlimited.

The Senator complains that this should be required as a matter of statute, that we ought to have an enactment of law that makes the administration provide these reports. But if we look at the supplemental the Congress adopted just before the Easter recess, that has already been done. This is redundant. It is unnecessary.

The Senator read from her amendment to tell us exactly what is in it. We have already provided for reports, and I am going to read it so everybody will know what we have already ordered the administration to do by law:

Not later than 45 days after date of enactment of this Act,

the President shall submit to the Committees on

Appropriations a report on the United States strategy

regarding activities related to post-conflict security,

humanitarian assistance, governance, and reconstruction in

Iraq that are undertaken as a result of Operation Iraqi

Freedom. The report shall include the following:

(1) The distribution of duties and responsibilities

regarding such activities among agencies of the United States

Government, including the Department of State, the United

States Agency for International Development, and the

Department of Defense (to be provided within 30 days within

enactment of this Act)

(2) A detailed plan describing the roles and

responsibilities of foreign governments and international

organizations, including the United Nations, in carrying out

activities related to post-conflict security, humanitarian

assistance, governance, and reconstruction in Iraq.

(3) A strategy for coordinating such activities among the

United States Government, foreign governments and

international organizations, including the United Nations.

(4) An initial estimate of the costs expected to be

associated with such activities.

(5) A strategy for distributing the responsibility for

paying costs associated with reconstruction activities in

Iraq among the United States, foreign governments, and

international organizations, including the United Nations,

and an estimate of the revenue expected to be generated by

Iraqi oil production that could be used to pay such costs.

(b) Subsequent Reports.--Not later than 90 days after the

date of enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter

until September 30, 2004, the President shall submit to the

Committees on Appropriations a report that contains:

(1) A list of significant United States Government-funded

activities related to reconstruction in Iraq that, during the

90-day period ending 15 days prior to the date the report is

submitted to the Committees on Appropriations--

(A) were initiated; or

(B) were completed.

(2) A list of the significant activities related to

reconstruction in Iraq that the President anticipates

initiating during the 90-day period beginning on the date the

report is submitted to the Committees on Appropriations,

including:

(A) Cost estimates for carrying out the proposed activities.

(B) The source of the funds that will be used to pay such

costs.

(C) Updated strategies, if changes are proposed regarding

matters included in the reports required under subsection

(a).

(4) An updated list of the financial pledges and

contributions made by foreign governments or international

organizations to fund activities related to humanitarian,

governance, and reconstruction assistance in Iraq.

Madam President, we would be hard pressed to require anything further that the Congress ought to know about the expenditure of funds in carrying out the operations of the activities described in this supplemental appropriations bill.

This bill we are considering enacting now in the Senate applies to appropriations that will be available beginning in the next fiscal year, fiscal year 2004. Reports are required by law now. They will continue to be required and be available to Members of Congress on whatever committee one serves--the Foreign Relations Committee, the Defense Committees, the Appropriations Committees, and any others.

We can read every day about the witnesses who are called before the Congress and questions are asked about what is going on in Iraq. We are entitled to that information. So it is not that I rise to oppose this amendment because we are not entitled to the information the Senator suggests we ought to have, but that we already have it and it is already required to be given to the Congress routinely, and it is made available under provisions of law that have already been enacted. Therefore, if you hired all the accountants and bookkeepers who would be required to fill in all the forms and submit all the documents that Senator Boxer requires, I suggest we should consider renaming her amendment. It should be the Bookkeepers and Accountants Civil Relief Act of 2003. That is my suggestion.

I hope the Senate will table the amendment, and it will be the intention of this Senator, when everybody has had an opportunity to talk about the amendment who wants to talk about the amendment, to move to table the amendment of the Senator from California.

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

Madam President, I ask consent that at 3:15 today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment No. 1271, to be immediately followed by a vote in relation to the Daschle amendment No. 1269, with no second-degree amendments in order to either amendment prior to the votes; provided further that there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form between the votes.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize Mr. Bryan Jones of Yazoo City, MS, for his distinguished service as president of Delta Council.

Delta Council is an area development organization representing the 18 Delta and part-Delta counties of Northwest Mississippi. Delta council was organized in 1935 to bring together the agricultural, business, and professional leadership of the region to confront the major problems facing the region at that time. Since then, the organization has expanded its role, under leaders like Bryan Jones, to include educational policy, water resource conversation, highway development, agricultural research, and flood control.

As president of Delta Council, Bryan Jones has served very effectively as a Delta leader during stressful economic times. He has used sound judgment and contributed to meaningful improvements in the quality of life in the region.

Bryan has led the Delta Council into new fields of endeavor such as health care and adult literacy. He has supported innovative land and water conservation programs. He has been a strong advocate for water resource developments that include improved environmental restoration. And, he has become well known throughout the region and among members of the Mississippi Congressional Delegation as an effective spokesperson on behalf of the Delta's largest industry, agriculture.

After graduating from the University of Mississippi, Bryan Jones could have been placed in a senior executive position in almost any company located anywhere in the United States. However, because of his love for the Mississippi Delta, Bryan returned to the Delta region and his community to build a $1 billion statewide banking system. In addition to serving as the Chief Executive Officer of the Delta Division of BankPlus, Bryan operates a cotton, soybean, corn, and wheat farm in Holmes and Humphreys Counties.

Bryan is a member of the Second Presbyterian Church in Yazoo City and he and his wife, Sara, have three children. He is an enthusiastic outdoors man and a director of Delta Wildlife, which is a leading advocate for the enhancement of the Mississippi Delta's rich wildlife resources.

I am pleased to congratulate Bryan Jones for his contributions to the Mississippi Delta and the Nation, and I look forward to working with him and other Delta Council leaders in the future who share our goal of improving the quality of life for the people of this area.