Congressional Record Weekly Update

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

1A) Defense Appropriations FY 04 - Excerpted Language re: Nuclear Materials

Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction
For assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union, including assistance provided by contract or by grants, for facilitating the elimination and the safe and secure transportation and storage of nuclear, chemical and other weapons; for establishing programs to prevent the proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and weapon-related technology and expertise; for programs relating to the training and support of defense and military personnel for demilitarization and protection of weapons, weapons components and weapons technology and expertise, and for defense and military contacts, $450,800,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006: Provided, That of the amounts provided under this heading, $10,000,000 shall be available only to support the dismantling and disposal of nuclear submarines, submarine reactor components, and warheads in the Russian Far East.

***************

SEC. 8165. (a) FINDINGS.--The Senate makes the following findings:

    (1) If a terrorist group were to acquire the necessary fissile material for a nuclear explosive device, it would not be difficult for the group to construct such a device, the explosion of which could kill and injure thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of people and destroy a large area of a city.

    (2) If a terrorist group were to acquire a complete nuclear weapon from a nation which has constructed nuclear weapons, it is likely that the group would be able to detonate the device with similar results.

    (3) A nation supplying either complete nuclear weapons or special nuclear material to terrorists might believe that it could escape retaliation by the United States, as the United States would not be able to determine the origin of either a weapon or its fissile material.

    (4) It is possible, however, to determine the country of origin of fissile material after a nuclear explosion, provided that samples of the radioactive debris from the explosion are collected promptly and analyzed in appropriate laboratories.

    (5) If radioactive debris is collected soon enough after a nuclear explosion, it is also possible to determine the characteristics of the nuclear explosive device involved, which information can assist in locating and dismantling other nuclear devices that may threaten the United States.

    (6) If countries that might contemplate supplying nuclear weapons or fissile material to terrorists know that their assistance can be traced, they are much less likely to allow terrorists access to either weapons or material.

    (7) It is in the interest of the United States to acquire a capability to collect promptly the debris from a nuclear explosion that might occur in any part of the Nation.

    (b) SENSE OF THE SENATE ON NUCLEAR DEBRIS COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS CAPABILITY.--It is the sense of the Senate that--

    (1) the Secretary of Defense should develop and deploy a nuclear debris collection and analysis capability sufficient to enable characterization of any nuclear device that might be exploded in the United States;

    (2) the capability should incorporate airborne debris collectors, either permanently installed on dedicated aircraft or available for immediate use on a class of aircraft, stationed so that a properly equipped and manned aircraft is available to collect debris from a nuclear explosion anywhere in the United States and transport such debris to an appropriate laboratory in a timely fashion; and

    (3) to the maximum extent practicable, the capability should be compatible with collection and analysis systems used by the United States to characterize overseas nuclear explosions.

    (c) REPORT.--Not later than March 31, 2004, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the feasibility of developing and deploying the capability described in subsection (b)(1).

1B) Additional Funding for Nonproliferation Programs

NONPROLIFERATION, ANTI-TERRORISM, DEMINING AND RELATED PROGRAMS

    For necessary expenses for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs and activities, $335,200,000, to carry out the provisions of chapter 8 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for anti-terrorism assistance, chapter 9 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, section 504 of the FREEDOM Support Act, section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act or the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for demining activities, the clearance of unexploded ordnance, the destruction of small arms, and related activities, notwithstanding any other provision of law, including activities implemented through nongovernmental and international organizations, and section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for a voluntary contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and for a United States contribution to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Preparatory Commission: Provided further, That of this amount not to exceed $20,000,000, to remain available until expended, may be made available for the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to promote bilateral and multilateral activities relating to nonproliferation and disarmament: Provided further, That such funds may also be used for such countries other than the Independent States of the former Soviet Union and international organizations when it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so following consultation with the appropriate committees of Congress: Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading may be made available for the International Atomic Energy Agency only if the Secretary of State determines (and so reports to the Congress) that Israel is not being denied its right to participate in the activities of that Agency: Provided further, That of the funds made available for demining and related activities, not to exceed $690,000, in addition to funds otherwise available for such purposes, may be used for administrative expenses related to the operation and management of the demining program.

   AMENDMENT NO. 11 OFFERED BY MR. SCHIFF

   Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

   The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

   The text of the amendment is as follows:

   Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Schiff:

    In the item relating to ``NONPROLIFERATION, ANTI-TERRORISM, DEMINING AND RELATED PROGRAMS''--

    (1) after the first dollar amount insert the following: ``(increased by $15,000,000)''; and

    (2) after the second dollar amount insert the following: ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

    In the item relating to ``FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM'', after the first dollar amount insert the following: ``(reduced by $90,000,000)''.

   Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases the nonproliferation and disarmament funds by $15 million, from $20 million to $35 million. The effect of this amendment, therefore, is to restore the full amount of the President's request for the nonproliferation and disarmament fund. Why should we do that? Why should we meet the President's request for funding of this account?

   Perhaps the single greatest threat we face as a Nation is from terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction. It is why we went to war in Iraq. It is why we established the Department of Homeland Security, to address

[Page: H7411]

this significant threat to American lives. And within the threat of terrorist possession of weapons of mass destruction, the greatest danger within that threat is the potential access of terrorists to nuclear material and the ability to create a nuclear weapon.

   We will survive another biological attack like the anthrax attacks. We will survive chemical attacks. But a nuclear attack in this country, on our soil or against our troops around the world would fundamentally change this Nation. And around the world there are literally hundreds of facilities that have some kilos, others that have tons of plutonium or highly enriched uranium in an unsecured condition.

   The technology of the atomic bomb is a half century old. It is not difficult to replicate. Obtaining the nuclear material is the terrorists' main obstacle and that challenge may be far too easily overcome.

   Removing the weapons usable material from the most vulnerable facilities around the world is a national security imperative for this country. What are we waiting for? It is far easier to prevent the theft of nuclear material than to track down the thieves after the material is gone. Fifty million dollars for a global cleanout of this material would be sufficient for several years if we were maximally efficient; $35 million, the President's request, is barely adequate; $20, what we do today, is simply irresponsible.

   The State Department has identified 24 top targeted sites of vulnerable stockpiles. If we look at our pace over the last decade, in August of 2002 in Project Vinca operation we removed 48 kilos of highly enriched uranium, enough to make one to three nuclear bombs from a vulnerable site in Yugoslavia.

   To succeed we had to go hat in hand to a private organization, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, for $5 million. Project Sapphire some years before that airlifted 600 kilos of highly enriched uranium away from a vulnerable location in Kazakhstan.

   We have had a total of three efforts like this in the last 10 years. At that pace our work will never be done. Our risks will be unacceptably high.

   Meeting our national security needs in the post Cold War period means addressing the most immediate threats first and with adequate resources. Restoring the funds to the nonproliferation and disarmament account in an amount requested by the President is what this amendment would do. I ask for Members' support.

   Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

   I thought it was the intention of the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) to withdraw the amendment at the end, but as I understand it he intends to go ahead with this.

   Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

   Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the chairman was prepared to offer this evening that he would work with me in conference.

   Mr. KOLBE. That was what I intended to say. Is it the gentleman's intention then to withdraw it at that point?

   Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention.

   Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's comments about this account. I would just like to note that we have recommended $335 million. That is an increase of $31 million in what is called the NADR, the Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related Programs.

[Time: 22:15]

   The gentleman's asked for a specific sub-account within there of the nonproliferation and disarmament fund. He has asked for money to be additionally placed in there, and I would just note that we have provided an increase of $5.1 million. That is a 34 percent increase in that account there.

   So I think we have done very well, and I would also note that this particular State Department discretionary fund has not had the best record of expeditiously obligating funds. I would just say the problem we have had is one that the gentleman has correctly identified, or maybe not has correctly identified, but is certainly one of the allocations that we have available to us.

   As I mentioned on the previous amendment, we have an allocation of a full billion dollars less than what is available to the Senate, and I would hope that when we are in conference if we have additional funds available to us to be able to work with the gentleman to increase the funding for this; and with that, Mr. Chairman, if that is satisfactory, if the gentleman would like to respond to that, I would yield to him for the purpose of commenting on that.

   Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

   I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me to try to improve the funding of this account in conference committee. The Senate, my understanding, has gone even beyond the President's request of $45 million. We are currently at $20 million, and I would hope that we would work together to meet the President's request of 35; and based on the Chairman's willingness to work together, I will move to withdraw my amendment.

   The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) is withdrawn.

   There was no objection.

1C) Prohibition of Nuclear Exports to Countries that Sponsor Terrorism

SA 1347. Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BAYH, and Mr. BUNNING) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 14, to enhance the energy security of the United States, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

    At the end of subtitle D of title IV, add the following:

   SEC. 443. PROHIBITION ON NUCLEAR EXPORTS TO COUNTRIES THAT SPONSOR TERRORISM.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--Section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2158) is amended--

    (1) by inserting ``a.'' before ``No nuclear exports''; and

    (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

    ``b. (1) Notwithstanding subsection a. and except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), and

[Page: S9808]

(4), no nuclear materials and equipment or sensitive nuclear technology, including items and assistance authorized by section 57 b. of this Act and regulated under Part 810 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, and nuclear-related items on the Commerce Control List, shall be exported, whether directly or indirectly, to any country that is on the Department of State list of countries that sponsor terrorism.

    ``(2) This subsection shall not apply to Iraq.

    ``(3) This subsection shall not apply to items, services, or information that are used for nuclear safeguards or nonproliferation purposes, including but not limited to surveillance equipment, seals, cameras, tamper-indication devices, nuclear detectors, monitoring systems, or equipment necessary to safely store, transport, or remove hazardous materials, whether such items, services, or information are regulated by the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ``(4) The President may waive the application of paragraph (1) to a country if the President determines and certifies to Congress that the waiver of that paragraph--

    ``(A) is in the vital national security interests of the United States;

    ``(B) is essential to prevent or respond to a serious radiological hazard in the country receiving the waiver that may or does threaten public health and safety; and

    ``(C) will not result in any increased risk that the country receiving the waiver will acquire nuclear weapons or any materials or components of nuclear weapons.

    ``(5) Notwithstanding section 121 of this Act, this subsection shall apply without regard to any international arrangement made after the date of the enactment of this subsection.''.

    (b) APPLICABILITY TO EXPORTS APPROVED FOR TRANSFER BUT NOT TRANSFERRED.--Subsection b. of section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as added by subsection (a) of this section, shall apply with respect to exports that have been approved for transfer as of the date of the enactment of this Act but have not yet been transferred as of that date.

2A) Defense Appropriations FY04 – Excerpted Language re: Missile Defense

SEC. 8093. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $154,800,000 shall be made available for the Arrow missile defense program: Provided, That

[Page: S9654]

of this amount, $10,000,000 shall be available for the purpose of continuing the Arrow System Improvement Program (ASIP), and $80,000,000 shall be available for the purpose of producing Arrow missile components in the United States and Arrow missile components and missiles in Israel to meet Israel's defense requirements, consistent with each nation's laws, regulations and procedures: Provided further, That funds made available under this provision for production of missiles and missile components may be transferred to appropriations available for the procurement of weapons and equipment, to be merged with and to be available for the same time period and the same purposes as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under this provision is in addition to any other transfer authority contained in this Act.

**************

SEC. 8110. None of the funds in this Act may be used for research, development, test, evaluation, procurement or deployment of nuclear armed interceptors of a missile defense system.

***************

SEC. 8114. Funds available to the Department of Defense under the heading ``RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE'' for the Missile Defense Agency may be used for the development and fielding of an initial set of missile defense capabilities.

***************

SEC. 8140. Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this Act under the heading ``RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE'', up to $800,000 may be available for the Tulane Center for Missile Defense, Louisiana.

3A) Defense Appropriations FY04 – Excerpted Language re: CW

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions in accordance with the provisions of section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the destruction of other chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical weapon stockpile, $1,620,076,000, of which $1,169,168,000 shall be for Operation and maintenance to remain available until September 30, 2005; $79,212,000 shall be for Procurement to remain available until September 30, 2006; $251,881,000 shall be for Research, development, test and evaluation to remain available until September 30, 2005; $119,815,000 shall be for military construction to remain available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, $10,000,000 of the funds available under this heading shall be expended only to fund Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program evacuation route improvements in Calhoun County, Alabama.

3B) Protection Against Terrorist Hoaxes Act of 2003

By Mr. BIDEN:

S. 1441. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to false information regarding certain criminal violations concerning hoax reports of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

   Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Protection Against Terrorist Hoaxes Act of 2003.'' This bill would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to, make it a Federal crime to knowingly make a hoax report, involving a biological, chemical, nuclear weapon, or other weapon of mass destruction. Likewise, this bill would make it a criminal offense to knowingly send such a hoax weapon to another.

   Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, our Nation has witnessed a number of terror hoax reports. This in turn has triggered an equally large number of reports of suspected biological agents. No part of the Nation has been spared, and my home State of Delaware has had several hundred reports of possible biological agents. The FBI has reported to Congress the staggering statistics involving these bioterrorism hoaxes and other reports of suspected biological agents. Prior to September 11, the FBI had responded to about 100 cases involving potential use of ``weapons of mass destruction,'' 67 of which involved alleged biological weapons. Since mid-September 2001, however, that number has increased by 3,000 percent.

   The good news is that most of these reports were either hoaxes or reports made by well-meaning people whose suspicions were raised. The bad news is that any hoax reports were made in the first place, triggering panic on the part of the public, and often forcing the Federal, State, and local governments to waste valuable time and resources responding to them. In one particularly egregious case, it has been reported that an employee of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection falsely reported to security that he had found a yellowish-white powder on his desk with the misspelled label ``ANTHAX.'' The employee, a 48-year-old solid waste management analyst, knew the material was not toxic, it was determined to be coffee creamer, but persisted in the false account. Eight hundred State employees were evacuated from the building for 2 days while law enforcement officials tested the building, at a cost of $1.5 million in lost worker's time, another $40,000 in decontamination costs, and an undisclosed amount of money spent on rescue and law enforcement. The employee is being charged in Federal court--not for the hoax report, but for lying to Federal officials after the fact.

   Indeed, the Justice Department reported to Congress that there is a gap in the existing Federal law regarding the prosecution of bioterrorism hoaxes. That is, while it is a crime to threaten to use, for example, anthrax as a weapon against another person, it is not a crime to make a hoax anthrax report. Accordingly, the Justice Department has repeatedly asked Congress to enact legislation which specifically addresses hoaxes which involve purported biological substances, as well as chemical, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Just this month, the Justice Department stated in testimony, ``changes in title 18 to expand the reach of the law to prohibit conduct resulting in such hoaxes would provide prosecutors with an appropriate tool to respond to these situations.''

   We should answer the call and act now to give law enforcement the tools they need to combat these despicable crimes. The Federal interest is indisputable, as States and localities are simply not equipped with the expertise or resources to evaluate and respond to these hoaxes. A comprehensive prohibition on such false reports is necessary to preserve scarce and vital Federal resources.

   Accordingly, as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Corrections and Victims' Rights, I introduce a bill today which contains both criminal provisions and civil penalties for the hoax reporting of bioterrorism incidents. My bill simply says that if you knowingly engage in conduct--such as deliberately sending baking powder through the mail to your congressman or calling 911 to falsely report the presence of anthrax in a public building--that is likely to create the false impression concerning the presence of anthrax, or other similar things, that you have committed A Federal offense, punishable by up to 5 years in jail. Moreover, such a person may be fined the greater of either $10,000 or the amount of money expended by the government to respond to the false information. Finally, such a person may also be ordered to reimburse the government if costs were incurred in responding to the false hoax. Let me be clear--this bill will not target innocent mistakes or people who make a report concerning a suspected substance; it is aimed, rather, at deliberate hoax reports by those who know they are spreading false information.

   I have said many times on the floor of this body that the terrorist win if they succeed in sowing seeds of panic into our daily lives. We cannot and will not let that happen. Similarly, we will not let these hoaxers get away with words and deeds which have the same effect. I urge my colleagues to support the Protection Against Terrorist Hoaxes Act of 2003.

3C) Limits on US Contributions to Certain UN Entities

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. FOSSELLA

   Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

   The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

   The text of the amendment is as follows:

   Amendment offered by Mr. Fossella:

    At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

   LIMITATION ON UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS TO CERTAIN UNITED NATIONS ENTITIES

    SEC. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for a United States contribution to any United Nations commission, organization, or affiliated agency that is chaired or presided over by a country, the government of which the Secretary of State has determined, for purposes of section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)), has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to pay expenses for any United States delegation to any United Nations commission, organization, or affiliated agency described in the preceding sentence.

[Time: 20:00]

   Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask the body, what do Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and other nations have in common, other than being oppressive, dictatorial regimes? Well, what they have in common is that at one time or another, they have served as Chair of commissions or organizations within the United Nations.

   So what my amendment does, based on legislation introduced earlier this year, is it essentially blocks funding to organizations, commissions, or other bodies headed by nations on a terrorist watch list. Specifically, it would block U.S. taxpayer dollars from being disbursed to the United Nations if the money is used for committees headed by nations that have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.

   Now, by way of example, I think a vivid example, I should say, is essentially what happened earlier this year with the Commission on Human Rights, or the Conference on Disarmament. These very commissions are dominated by nations opposed to the very concepts by which those commissions are named. Last month's outrage was Cuba. The dictatorship's brutal crackdown included the execution of three men for trying to escape Cuba and imprisoned dozens of others for daring to speak out. They have a vital role on the Commission on Human Rights. The U.N. said nothing about the crackdown, but Cuba was then elected to another term to serve on the panel. Ironically, the chairman, or the Chair country of that Commission on Human Rights, is Libya.

   At the beginning of the year, Iraq was going to head the Conference on Disarmament. Iraq did not take over, but remained on the commission, the Commission on Disarmament. Iran

[Page: H7301]

chaired the conference instead. Also on the Disarmament Committee is North Korea. I just think that this is symptomatic of a lot of carelessness at the United Nations.

   There are many who think that the United Nations can play a pivotal and vital role in securing the world's peace. But from time to time, the only language it seems they understand is the power of the purse.

   So all this amendment does is if one of these nations, and I think everybody in good conscience can look at these nations and say they represent not only what the brutal regimes are all about, but really are inconsistent with fundamental universal values, I would suggest that the money is withheld. Very simply put, I think it is common sense. After all, the U.S. provides almost 22 percent of the U.N. budget, which currently stands at about $222 million; and what we are suggesting is that if one of these nations on the State Department list of terrorist nations is heading one of these commissions, the money is withheld.

   With that, I urge adoption of this amendment.

   Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

   Mr. Chairman, the State Department has been in touch with the committee, and I want to share with the Members their position. They said that this is an amendment that they strongly oppose. They go on to say, we the State Department, have taken a hard stand against Libya, a country that supports terrorism and has a dismal human rights record in its election to chair the Commission on Human Rights. In calling for a vote, the State Department said that they forced members to take a stand on this issue, and everyone knew what the U.S. position was.

   They end by saying that withdrawing support by withholding part of our assessed contributions, thus accumulating arrears and eliminating funding for U.S. participation in these bodies, weakens our effectiveness and would be counterproductive.

   That is the position of the State Department.

• [Begin Insert]

   This amendment would prohibit U.S. contributions for activities funded within the budgets of the U.N. or its affiliated agencies whose decision-making bodies (e.g., commission) are chaired by a member state which supports acts of international terrorism (as determined by the Secretary under section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979).

   The Administration fully agrees that U.N. bodies should not be headed or chaired by member states which sponsor or support international terrorism.

   We have made these views abundantly clear over the past year.

   We took a hard stand against Libya, a country that supports terrorism and has a dismal human rights record, in its election to chair the Commission on Human Rights. In calling for a vote, we forced members to take a stand on this issue, and everyone knew the U.S. position.

   We also work hard to keep states that support international terrorism off the U.N. Security Council.

   But we strongly believe that withholding funding for bodies chaired by such states will not help us achieve our policy goals at the U.N.

   To effect change at the U.N., we need to remain fully engaged, which is our goal and our plan.

   Withdrawing support by withholding part of our assessed contributions--thus accumulating arrears--and eliminating funding for U.S. participation in these bodies weakens our effectiveness, and would be counterproductive.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

   Mr. Chairman, I think that my colleague from New York makes some very strong points. The problem with his amendment and the reason I rise in opposition to it is that I believe that while we may not be happy with some of the folks that make up some of the organizations that are part of the U.N. and other international organizations, for that matter, it is in the best interests of our country, it is in the best interests of our foreign policy to be engaged in these organizations, rather than withdraw from them and not support them.

   So while his points are well taken, and I am sure that if we sat down around a table we would not disagree on some of the makeup of these organizations, to withdraw from them, not to be supportive, not to pay our dues is, in fact, one, to turn our back on the ability to do some good work by those organizations and secondly, and most importantly, if we sort of take our marbles or take our basketball and go home, we do not get to participate and, therefore, we do not get to speak about the same issues that the gentleman from New York is concerned about.

   So for those reasons, I would join the chairman in opposing the amendment.

   The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

   The amendment was agreed to.

3D) Veterans’ Protection Research

AMENDMENT NO. 12 OFFERED BY MR. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

   The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

   The text of the amendment is as follows:

   Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:

   Strike section 114.

   The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.

   The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

   Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike section 114 of the bill to remove a provision that would bar the VA from using funds to implement provisions of Public Law 107-287, the Department of Veterans Affairs Emergency Preparedness Act. This vital veterans legislation would create new research centers to help protect future veterans and current ones from the effects of weapons of mass destruction.

   For the benefit of my colleagues who are not familiar with this law, the VA Emergency Preparedness Act was designed to give the VA health care system better tools and information to prepare for the possibility of injuries and illnesses to servicemembers caused by weapons of mass destruction.

   Dr. Susan Mather, the Chief Public Health and Environmental Hazards Officer, is ready to move forward to let these kinds of programs go forward so the research will be done, so if the unthinkable happens to our men and women in uniform with regards to biological, radiological or chemical, that we will have a more adequate response than we do right now.

   Let me point out that the VA excels in establishing Centers of Excellence. It does it on a myriad of fronts, including for combat and war-related injuries that are suffered on the battlefield. Two recent centers were established for that purpose.

   The VA is ready to go, and Dr. Mather made the point to the Under Secretary of Health that the VA health care system is ``more likely than any large, small, private or public health care system to be required to identify and respond to threats of chemical and biological or other threats to public health or safety.'' Thus, the Medical Emergency Preparedness program will facilitate the best medical care and services to veterans.

   The VA is ready to go. This provision in the bill that precludes that, I think, is unfortunate.

   Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

   The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek the time in opposition to the amendment?

   Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

   The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is recognized for 10 minutes.

   Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds another bureaucratic arm to the Veterans Administration by creating a new assistant secretary. This function, the function of emergency preparedness, is already under the Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning. Emergency activities are well planned, managed and executed under the current arrangement.

   Another part of this amendment takes money away from regular medical care. We just heard some debate about the cost of medical care and the need for additional funds for medical care. This would take money out of medical care to create these new crisis centers.

   I believe the money should be prioritized to treating sick veterans. That is the mission of the Veterans Health Administration, and the focus should remain there.

   Emergency response and research centers and activities are already funded under the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Defense and Health and Human Services, where they rightly belong. I would urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.

   Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.

   Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The amendment makes sense. These types of emergency preparedness activities have historically taken place within the VA. They should continue to take place within the VA, especially at a time when the United States of America is threatened by chemical, biological and possibly even dirty nuclear weapons; especially when our veterans overseas, those in Iraq in particular, have the potential of being exposed to these types of weapons.

   We cannot afford to let some bureaucratic arguments get in the way of implementing this legislation. It is important legislation. We cannot afford to get bureaucratic rules in the way of restoring $1.8 billion to this bill, so we can properly fund veterans' health care.

   I was told earlier this afternoon by a colleague that certain categories of veterans are fully funded. Yes, they are, but that does not meet the obligations and requirements of this body to fund all veterans.

   In 1996, when we in this Chamber passed unanimously H.R. 3118, no ``no'' votes, we opened the Veterans Health Administration to all veterans. All veterans, to all veterans. We have not kept that promise.

   In April of this year, when we passed a budget resolution which adequately funded health care to all veterans, to all veterans, we have walked away from that promise as well.

   I do not blame the chairman of the subcommittee or the ranking member; they have done the best they can with the allocation they have. They have done a brilliant job with the allocation they have. But the allocation they have is inadequate for us to meet the promise to our veterans.

   It is interesting to note that we have money in this bill for cemeteries because if we deny our veterans the health care they deserve and earned, and we have promised to them, we are going to need those cemeteries.

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

   Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I see and hear firsthand the scars of battle borne by our veterans during the carnage of war. Veterans do receive affordable, quality health care. However, in expanding the eligibility requirement for health care in 1996, we now have veterans waiting months for an appointment because we are not keeping up with the funding demands.

   We are obligated to honor the promise this Chamber made to fund veterans' medical care at the March budget leave. As the son of a retired two-star general, I was raised to believe that a man's word is his bond. Those who vote in favor of this bill, whether Republican or Democrat, vote to underfund the needs of those who shed their blood so we can breathe free.

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

   Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, certainly coming from Florida I have a very large veterans population. I have the second largest veterans population in this Congress.

   When I went back home and told them about the amount of funding that was in the budget that we passed, I can tell Members they were delighted. It was not enough even then, but it sure made a big difference.

   Today, the bill that we will be voting on will be cutting $1.8 billion from the veterans' health care appropriation. That is wrong. We are breaking a promise that we made when we went home and told them about the funding that was in the budget. I think veterans deserve better. They have defended our country.

   Tomorrow, I am going to be presenting medals to Korean War veterans, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Korean War. Can we give them a medal and turn our backs on what they may have in health care needs?

   We also have men and women coming home from Iraq. What kind of health care are they going to have?

   I know how hard the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New

[Page: H7688]

York (Mr. Walsh), worked on this and how hard the members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee on the Budget worked on this, because I serve on both. We took some tough votes because we were told there would be additional funding in the final appropriations bill that was passed.

   I cannot vote for this bill, and I think that there are many in this Chamber who are really, as we used to say back in New York, having agita over this vote. This is not a vote that I can cast affirmatively.

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

   Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we know it is a very difficult budget year and lots of decisions have to be made. I have 61,000 retired veterans and military retirees, combined, that live in the Third District of North Carolina, the home of Camp Lejeune, Cherry Point, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. And like each and every one of my colleagues, I know we all care about our vets, but let me say that sometimes, for all of us who serve, you get a little bit wondering, what are our priorities? And with all of the responsibilities we have, should those vets be number one for this country?

   I believe those of us who had the privilege to serve--and no, I do not have a military background, but Members do not need a military background to appreciate those who put the uniform on for this country.

   Mr. Chairman, I think about those young kids at Walter Reed and those young kids at Bethesda who lost a limb, many are paralyzed, and in the short term they will be taken care of, but how about 3 and 4 and 5 years down the road? We are losing beds and losing care. America is too great to let this happen.

   Let me say, Mr. Chairman, in closing, that many of my vets ask me, we find this money for foreign aid, we find $15 billion for Africa, and they want to help the AIDS victims in Africa, but they agree and I agree, they should come first. Then if we have extra money, let us help the other people; but for God's sake, let us not forget our vets. We made a promise a few months ago that it would be $1.8 billion.

   I know the chairman and the ranking member are two of the finest men here in the House, and this is not their doing or their fault, but let us reestablish our priorities and let us take care of those who are willing to give their lives for us.

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

   The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has the right to close.

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

   This amendment that has been made in order is not the amendment to add back $1.8 billion, and I say that with great sadness on behalf of our veterans.

   What this amendment would do is lift a prohibition in the underlying bill that would prevent the VA from establishing already authorized medical preparedness centers, Centers of Excellence, to work the issue on weapons of mass destruction.

[Time: 15:00]

   As I said earlier, the VA is ready to go. We already have their time line. It is in print. They are ready to go. They want to do this. I would say to my colleagues that if we are saying we do not have the $5 million approximate in start-up costs, let us grow this budget. That is what we have been saying in this entire debate. I hope my colleagues will vote for this. I would again remind my colleagues that the VA already operates dozens of specialized research centers, the center for limb loss, the center for spinal cord injury, the center for brain rehab, the center for wheelchair and related technology; in May of 2001, two new centers to study war-related illnesses. We are not breaking new ground here; we are moving in a direction that heretofore has not been addressed and that is weapons of mass destruction. I would hope my colleagues would vote for this amendment.

   Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

   Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and a combat veteran.

   Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for his leadership. There are a lot of different individuals here on many different committees that after September 11 did an assessment. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman, also did his assessment. At the same time so were other committees. The real question right now is over the issue on redundancy. I want to applaud the chairman for having his bill passed and it is authorized.

   The real question now is on the funding and the timeliness of that funding. I recognize the present objection of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. With regard to some of the comments from my other colleagues with regard to whether the funding has been underfunded or not and we have been citing back to when we did eligibility reform here on the House floor, I want everybody to note this, that during that time period, the Congressional Budget Office and GAO provided testimony to the House and the Senate. They said, if you change eligibility from the core competencies of the VA and let non-service-connected disabled veterans be treated the same in line with combat- or peace-disabled veterans, you will open up the system and you will have a tremendous cost impact.

   The Committee on Veterans' Affairs staff and members on the House and the Senate did not agree with what the recommendations were nor testimony of CBO and OMB. As a matter of fact, the veterans service community and organizations, some in particular mocked CBO and OMB for their testimony. Their testimony was correct. We were wrong.

   So what we are doing today is we are trying to now catch up. Members may ask, what do you mean catch up? In the last 5 years in which the gentleman from New York has chaired the subcommittee, we have increased the health budget in the VA 50 percent. Members might say, my gosh, 50 percent, why? Because the category 7's and 8's are rushing into the system. Today we have a system called a no-shame system. A no-shame system. There are things in our society, if you are in a food line and you have already eaten and there are people that have not eaten, do you get in line and cut before them? No, that is shameful. What happens today is that you have individuals who are non-service-connected disabled veterans who are in line before combat-disabled veterans. I think that is shameful. Others can disagree with that, but I think that is. Today this present theme has become that every veteran is a veteran is a veteran. That is the present theme, because we do not want to look back and see what the mistakes were that we made. No one in this House wants to accept the responsibility for having gotten it wrong: Oh, please, Steve, don't tell us the mistakes that we made. Just fund it. Just throw more money at it.

   Folks, we are creating a problem. If we do not accept some responsibility here, I am fearful of what is happening to the VA. We need to restore the core competencies of the VA in those categories 1 through 6. I want to applaud the chairman for his work along with the ranking member. It is quality work.

   Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

   Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

   The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

   The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

   The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) will be postponed.

********************

AMENDMENT NO. 12 OFFERED BY MR. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY

   The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.

   The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

   The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

   RECORDED VOTE

   The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.

   A recorded vote was ordered.

   The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 347, noes 77, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 451]

AYES--347

   Abercrombie

   Ackerman

   Akin

   Alexander

   Allen

   Andrews

   Baca

   Bachus

   Baird

   Baker

   Baldwin

   Ballance

   Ballenger

   Barrett (SC)

   Bartlett (MD)

   Bass

   Beauprez

   Becerra

   Bell

   Bereuter

   Berkley

   Berman

   Berry

   Bilirakis

   Bishop (GA)

   Bishop (NY)

   Blackburn

   Blumenauer

   Boehlert

   Boehner

   Bono

   Boozman

   Boswell

   Boucher

   Boyd

   Bradley (NH)

   Brady (PA)

   Brown (OH)

   Brown (SC)

   Brown, Corrine

   Brown-Waite, Ginny

   Burgess

   Burns

   Burr

   Burton (IN)

   Calvert

   Camp

   Capito

   Capps

   Capuano

   Cardin

   Cardoza

   Carson (IN)

   Carson (OK)

   Carter

   Case

   Chabot

   Chocola

   Clay

   Clyburn

   Coble

   Cole

   Conyers

   Costello

   Cox

   Cramer

   Crane

   Crenshaw

   Crowley

   Cubin

   Cummings

   Cunningham

   Davis (AL)

   Davis (CA)

   Davis (FL)

   Davis (IL)

   Davis (TN)

   Davis, Jo Ann

   Davis, Tom

   Deal (GA)

   DeFazio

   DeGette

   Delahunt

   DeLauro

   Deutsch

   Diaz-Balart, L.

   Diaz-Balart, M.

   Dicks

   Dingell

   Doggett

   Dooley (CA)

   Doyle

   Edwards

   Emanuel

   Emerson

   Engel

   English

   Eshoo

   Etheridge

   Evans

   Farr

   Fattah

   Feeney

   Ferguson

   Filner

   Forbes

   Ford

   Fossella

   Frank (MA)

   Frost

   Gallegly

   Garrett (NJ)

   Gerlach

   Gibbons

   Gillmor

   Gingrey

   Gonzalez

   Goode

   Goodlatte

   Gordon

   Goss

   Graves

   Green (WI)

   Greenwood

   Grijalva

   Gutierrez

   Gutknecht

   Hall

   Harman

   Harris

   Hart

   Hastings (FL)

   Hayes

   Hayworth

   Hefley

   Hensarling

   Herger

   Hill

   Hinojosa

   Hoeffel

   Hoekstra

   Holden

   Holt

   Honda

   Hooley (OR)

   Hostettler

   Hoyer

   Hunter

   Hyde

   Inslee

   Isakson

   Israel

   Issa

   Jackson (IL)

   Jackson-Lee (TX)

   Janklow

   Jefferson

   Jenkins

   John

   Johnson (CT)

   Johnson (IL)

   Johnson, E. B.

   Jones (NC)

   Jones (OH)

   Kanjorski

   Kaptur

   Keller

   Kelly

   Kennedy (MN)

   Kennedy (RI)

   Kildee

   Kilpatrick

   Kind

   King (IA)

   King (NY)

   Kirk

   Kleczka

   Kucinich

   Lampson

   Langevin

   Lantos

   Larsen (WA)

   Larson (CT)

   Latham

   LaTourette

   Leach

   Lee

   Levin

   Lewis (GA)

   Lewis (KY)

   Linder

   Lipinski

   LoBiondo

   Lofgren

   Lowey

   Lucas (KY)

   Lucas (OK)

   Lynch

   Majette

   Maloney

   Manzullo

   Markey

   Marshall

   Matheson

   Matsui

   McCarthy (MO)

   McCarthy (NY)

   McCollum

   McCotter

   McDermott

   McGovern

   McHugh

   McInnis

   McIntyre

   McKeon

   McNulty

   Meehan

   Meek (FL)

   Meeks (NY)

   Menendez

   Mica

   Michaud

   Millender-McDonald

   Miller (FL)

   Miller (MI)

   Miller (NC)

   Miller, Gary

   Miller, George

   Mollohan

   Moore

[Page: H7709]

   Moran (KS)

   Moran (VA)

   Murphy

   Nadler

   Napolitano

   Neugebauer

   Ney

   Norwood

   Obey

   Olver

   Ortiz

   Ose

   Owens

   Oxley

   Pallone

   Pascrell

   Pastor

   Paul

   Payne

   Pelosi

   Pence

   Peterson (MN)

   Peterson (PA)

   Pickering

   Pitts

   Platts

   Pombo

   Pomeroy

   Porter

   Portman

   Price (NC)

   Rahall

   Ramstad

   Rangel

   Rehberg

   Renzi

   Reyes

   Reynolds

   Rodriguez

   Rogers (AL)

   Rogers (MI)

   Rohrabacher

   Ross

   Rothman

   Roybal-Allard

   Royce

   Ruppersberger

   Rush

   Ryan (OH)

   Ryan (WI)

   Ryun (KS)

   Sabo

   Sanchez, Linda T.

   Sanchez, Loretta

   Sanders

   Sandlin

   Schakowsky

   Schiff

   Scott (GA)

   Scott (VA)

   Sensenbrenner

   Serrano

   Shaw

   Shays

   Sherman

   Shimkus

   Shuster

   Simmons

   Skelton

   Slaughter

   Smith (MI)

   Smith (NJ)

   Smith (TX)

   Smith (WA)

   Snyder

   Solis

   Spratt

   Stark

   Stearns

   Stenholm

   Strickland

   Stupak

   Sweeney

   Tancredo

   Tanner

   Tauscher

   Tauzin

   Taylor (MS)

   Terry

   Thomas

   Thompson (CA)

   Thompson (MS)

   Tierney

   Towns

   Turner (OH)

   Turner (TX)

   Udall (CO)

   Udall (NM)

   Upton

   Van Hollen

   Velazquez

   Visclosky

   Waters

   Watson

   Watt

   Waxman

   Weiner

   Weldon (PA)

   Weller

   Wexler

   Whitfield

   Wilson (NM)

   Wilson (SC)

   Woolsey

   Wu

   Wynn

   Young (AK)

NOES--77

   Aderholt

   Barton (TX)

   Biggert

   Bishop (UT)

   Blunt

   Bonilla

   Bonner

   Brady (TX)

   Buyer

   Cannon

   Cantor

   Castle

   Collins

   Culberson

   DeLay

   DeMint

   Doolittle

   Dreier

   Duncan

   Dunn

   Ehlers

   Everett

   Flake

   Foley

   Franks (AZ)

   Frelinghuysen

   Gilchrest

   Granger

   Hastings (WA)

   Hobson

   Houghton

   Hulshof

   Istook

   Johnson, Sam

   Kingston

   Kline

   Knollenberg

   Kolbe

   LaHood

   Lewis (CA)

   Murtha

   Musgrave

   Myrick

   Nethercutt

   Northup

   Nunes

   Nussle

   Osborne

   Otter

   Pearce

   Petri

   Pryce (OH)

   Putnam

   Quinn

   Radanovich

   Regula

   Rogers (KY)

   Saxton

   Schrock

   Sessions

   Shadegg

   Sherwood

   Simpson

   Souder

   Taylor (NC)

   Thornberry

   Tiahrt

   Tiberi

   Toomey

   Vitter

   Walden (OR)

   Walsh

   Wamp

   Weldon (FL)

   Wicker

   Wolf

   Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

   Cooper

   Fletcher

   Gephardt

   Green (TX)

   Hinchey

   McCrery

   Neal (MA)

   Oberstar

   Ros-Lehtinen

   Sullivan

   ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

   The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

[Time: 17:33]

   Messrs. COLLINS, PETRI, HOUGHTON, FRANKS of Arizona, and WALDEN of Oregon changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

   Ms. KILPATRICK, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mrs. CUBIN and Messrs. SHIMKUS, UPTON, SHUSTER, BURGESS, CALVERT, GARY G. MILLER of California, ROTHMAN, and CUNNINGHAM changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

   So the amendment was agreed to.

4A) Avoiding Entangling Alliances and Internal Affairs of Other Nations

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the truth about whether or not Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium from Niger has dominated the news for the past several weeks. Many of those challenging the administration on this issue are motivated more by politics than by policy. Some doing the challenging were strongly in favor of going to war against Iraq when it appeared politically popular to do so, but are now chagrined that the war is not going as smoothly as was hoped.

    I am sure once the alleged attempt to buy uranium is thoroughly debunked, the other excuses for going to war will be examined with a great deal of scrutiny as well. It is obvious that the evidence used to justify going to war is now less than convincing.

    The charge that Saddam Hussein had aluminum tubes used in manufacturing nuclear weapons was in error.

    A fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles capable of dispensing chemical and biological weapons did not exist.

    The 63,000 liters of anthrax and botulism have not been found, nor have any of the mobile germ labs. There are no signs of the 1 million pounds of sarin, mustard and VX gasses.

    No evidence has been revealed to indicate Iraq was a threat to anyone's security, let alone ours.

    The charge that Saddam Hussein was connected to the al Qaeda was wrong. Saddam Hussein's flaunting of the UN resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction remains unproven.

    How could so many errors have occurred? Some say it was ineptness while others claim outright deception and lies. There are some who say it was selective use of intelligence to promote a particular policy already decided upon. This debate, I am sure, will rage on for a long time, and since motivations are subjective and hard to prove, resolving the controversy will be difficult. However, this should not diminish the importance of sorting out the truth from the fiction, the errors from the malice.

    One question, though, I hope gets asked is why should we use intelligence cited by a foreign government as a justification for going to war? One would think that with the billions we spend, we could fully rely on our own intelligence-gathering agencies.

    Another point of interest, lacking a coherent foreign policy, we have support for war coming from different groups depending on circumstances unrelated to national defense. For instance, those who strenuously objected to Kosovo promoted war in Iraq. And those who objected to Iraq are now anxious to send troops to Liberia. For some, U.N. permission is important and necessary. For others, the U.N. is helpful as long as it endorses the war they want.

    Only a few correctly look to the Constitution and to the Congress to sort out the pros and cons of each conflict and decide whether or not a declaration of war is warranted.

    The sad fact is that we have lost our way. A threat to national security is no longer a litmus test for sending troops hither and yon, and the American people no longer require Congress to declare the wars we fight. Hopefully, some day that will be changed.

    The raging debate over whether or not Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium, as important as it is, distracts from the much more important strategic issue of what is the proper foreign policy in a republic.

    Hopefully, we will soon seriously consider the policy of noninterventionism in the affairs of others. Avoiding entangling alliances and staying out of the internal affairs of other nations is a policy most conducive to peace and prosperity and one the Founders endorsed. Policing the world and nation building are not part of a constitutional republic.

4B) A Constant Drumbeat

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the constant drumbeat in the press goes on. We find it highlighted in this week's national news magazines: a constant attack on the credibility of George W. Bush; a constant drumbeat calling him a liar, at the very least an exaggerator who did it deliberately to mislead the American people and to take us to war.

   Those in the media who get involved need to be reminded just a little bit of their responsibility. It is their responsibility to react not just to the flavor of the moment, in terms of political issues, but to give us a little bit of institutional memory. Since they seem to lack that memory, I will do my best to supply it here this afternoon.

   I remember as a Member of this body some intelligence lapses that occurred and decisions that were made on the basis of those lapses. Let me give you some.

   I remember when the United States bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan because the intelligence said it was a place where biological weapons were being created. This was not a trivial matter. I went to the room here in the Capitol that is reserved for secret briefings. I refer to it as the secret room where secret people tell us secret things, and I had no less than the Secretary of Defense absolutely insist that the intelligence was rock solid that biological weapons were being produced at this plant in Sudan.

   We now know the intelligence was wrong. The plant was not involved in the production of biological or chemical weapons. The intelligence information that led us to believe it had been was flawed, it was old, and the casualties that occurred on that occasion were civilians who needlessly lost their lives because the American intelligence was bad.

   The question is: Would we have been better off if we had not destroyed that plant in the Sudan? And the answer is clearly yes. Intelligence let us down. We made the wrong decision. We killed some civilians. We would have been better off if we had not proceeded.

   The second lapse of intelligence occurred during the bombing in Bosnia. I was involved in this one to a greater degree than the other. This is where the Americans bombed what they thought was a legitimate target and it turned out to be the Chinese Embassy. Furthermore, it was more than just the Chinese Embassy. It was the center of Chinese intelligence activity that covered most of that part of Europe.

   I was in China on a congressional delegation not long after that occurred. One after another Chinese official kept berating me and the other members of the delegation as to why we had deliberately targeted and destroyed a key intelligence center for the Chinese.

   Our answer was that this was an intelligence failure on our part; that the CIA was using an old address book, and we had not realized we were, in fact,

[Page: S9627]  GPO's PDF

destroying a very sensitive Chinese installation.

   I remember the response from a Chinese official as we made that explanation. He said: You Americans have the best intelligence in the world. You have been following what we have been doing in that part of the world for years. You destroyed a major intelligence asset of ours, and you claim it was a mistake? You claim your intelligence assets were so bad you did not realize we had been at that location for years?

   It was very clear from the questions and the tone of voice with which those questions were asked that the Chinese officials did not believe us. They did not believe we were capable of such a stupid mistake.

   The only defense that could be offered, and it was offered by another member of the delegation, was it had to be a mistake because, in fact, it was so stupid. No one would have done that deliberately and damaged the relationship between the United States and the Chinese so seriously.

   It was in response to that the U.S. Embassy in Beijing was stoned. I saw the windows that were broken. I saw the bullet holes that pocked the walls as people fired on the Embassy. It was a major incident.

   Again, the fundamental question: Would we have been better off if we had not done it? And the answer is an unequivocal and overwhelming, yes; we would have been better off if we had not done it.

   I could go on, but let me take those two examples of failed intelligence and those two questions--would we have been better off if we had not done it in the Sudan, and would we have been better off if we had not done it in Belgrade--and put them in the context of today's debate.

   Let's assume for a moment--and I underscore that I do not--that the intelligence that led up to the decision to go ahead in Iraq was as faulty as the administration's critics are now claiming it was, and then ask the same fundamental question: Would the world be better off if we had not gone into Iraq? And the answer is clearly, no. The answer is clearly as Tony Blair laid it out before the joint session of Congress. He made it clear if we made a mistake, history will forgive the mistake because the consequences of it were that we freed the Iraqi people. We brought a degree of credibility and stability into that region that has not been there. We have new leverage to deal with the Israeli/Palestinian question beyond that which any American President has had.

   If, in fact, we blundered into Iraq--and, once again, I underscore the fact I do not believe we did--we did a good thing. Unlike the failed intelligence that caused us to blow up a civilian production facility in the Sudan, which was a bad thing, unlike the failed intelligence that caused us to destroy the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, which was a bad thing, if there was flawed intelligence here that caused us to go into Iraq, it was still a good thing.

   Let me give an example of flawed intelligence with respect to Iraq. We did not know, going into Iraq, the degree to which Saddam Hussein had committed genocide against his own people. With all of the intelligence assets we had on the ground in Iraq, we were unaware of the number and extent of the mass graves that we are still uncovering while we are

   there. If we are going to complain, as those in the media are doing, that the intelligence going into Iraq was flawed, they should complain just as much about the failure of intelligence to tell us the degree of his brutality. But they are not talking about that. We do not get any media reports with each new discovery of a major new mass grave. Those are dismissed in what is called the mainstream media because that might lend support to the idea that going into Iraq was the right thing to have done.

   No, instead we are quibbling over words that appeared in the State of the Union that somehow triggered massive misunderstanding on the part of the American people. I would challenge anyone to go to anyone in America and ask them how many of them remember the 16 words that are being challenged. Well, maybe the American people do not remember those words but certainly the Congress does.

   There is a slight problem with that because the State of the Union Message was given after the Congress had approved the President's intervention in Iraq. The vote was taken on this floor prior to the time the President made those statements. So how can anyone in this body claim that he or she was misled by the President's statement in the State of the Union when the vote was taken prior to the time that statement was made?

   Once again, that is a fact that is conveniently left out of all of the media analysis. They do not tell us that Congress went to the briefings and came to its conclusion as to the rightness of the decision in Iraq before the President made that comment in the State of the Union.

   I went to the briefings. There was a briefing at the Pentagon that I remember very carefully. We went over for breakfast with the Secretary of Defense and he gave us a complete briefing on the entire issue of weapons of mass destruction and where things were in Iraq. I must say I did not see any of the current critics of the President's plan present at that briefing. I remember fairly clearly who was there. I could not name all of the Senators who were there, but I could name all of the Democratic Senators who were there, and none of them is currently engaged in criticizing the President.

   I remember a briefing at the White House in the Roosevelt Room with representatives of the CIA and Condoleezza Rice, where we went through the whole issue of weapons of mass destruction. Once again, I can remember the Senators who were at that briefing. It was open to all. It was not a private thing where a few Senators were requested. Any Senator who wanted could have gone to that briefing. I remember those who were there. Not one of the current critics of the President's position was there at that briefing.

   So I find it a little disingenuous to have them say they were misled when they did not attend the briefings that were given.

   Now let me take my colleagues to that briefing in the Roosevelt Room in the White House and summarize for them what was said there. We were told the following: Four areas of deep concern were raised, and we were told in descending order of how scary these were. The first was biological weapons. The second was Saddam Hussein's capacity to deliver those weapons. The third was chemical weapons. The fourth was nuclear weapons.

   I remember that very clearly because I summarized it back to the briefers and said: Let me be sure I understand what you are saying. You are saying you are most frightened of his capacity in the biological area, slightly less frightened about his ability to deliver those weapons, slightly less frightened about his capacity in the chemical area, and least frightened about his capacity in the nuclear area? And they said, yes, Senator that is the descending order of concern.

   I cite that because we are now being told in the popular press that the entire operation was sold to us because of the threat of nuclear weapons, ignoring the facts that we were given at the briefing to which they did not come.

   The question was raised, Why should we be going against Saddam Hussein at this particular time? That was one of the questions at the briefing. I remember the answer very clearly. If we are just talking about weapons of mass destruction, there are a number of countries that have weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, if we went to the country that has the most outside of the United States itself, that would be Russia. Simple possession of weapons of mass destruction, the point was clearly made at the briefing, simple possession of weapons of mass destruction does not justify taking action.

   A brutal dictator who oppresses his own people. Look around the world and there are plenty of brutal dictators who oppress their own people. Being a brutal dictator who oppresses his own people is not justification for the United States to go to war against you. That point was clearly made at the briefing.

   Willingness to invade your neighbors. There have been regimes around the world that have attacked recently their neighbors. Clearly, the United States cannot intervene every time there is a border war or a willingness to attack your neighbors. That, alone, does not justify going against someone in a military fashion.

[Page: S9628]  GPO's PDF

   Using weapons of mass destruction is different from possessing them. Now we are getting kind of narrow because we do not have a great number of examples of regimes that have used weapons of mass destruction. But maybe that alone, again, does not justify going against another regime.

   Put them all together--possession of weapons of mass destruction, using the weapons of mass destruction, crossing borders and invading your neighbors, and being in the hands of a brutal dictator--now we are getting a list and we are coming very close to Saddam Hussein, as the only brutal dictator with weapons of mass destruction, who qualifies for all four of those.

   But there is a fifth that comes into play as a follow-on to September 11: That is financing and harboring terrorists. Let me make it clear at that briefing, no one said there was a heavy al-Qaida presence in Iraq. Once again, people in the media are attacking President Bush for saying something that, in fact, he did not say. What was said at the briefing was Iraq sponsors terrorism, Iraq funds terrorism, and there are intelligence reports of Iraq harboring members of al-Qaida who are fleeing for their lives.

   The statement was never made that there was a major al-Qaida headquarters in Iraq. The statement was simply made that terrorists run through Iraq. A number of terrorist organizations, in addition to al-Qaida, have been represented in Iraq. Iraq funds terrorism throughout the region.

   Here are five different criteria, any one of which might not be enough to justify moving against a foreign government. Indeed, two or even three gathered together might still not justify moving against a foreign government. But the statement was made clearly, when you put all five together and ask yourself where in the world do you find all five at the same time, the answer is in one place and one place only: That place is Iraq.

   That was the intelligence briefing I attended. That was the intelligence information I heard when I made up my mind to be in support of the President and this operation. As I said before, I do not remember--indeed, I am sure that most of the President's congressional critics--indeed, all of--the

   President's congressional critics in this Chamber--were not there. They did not hear the briefings.

   For them to come forward now and say the President misled them, when they did not go, is disingenuous. I do not feel misled. I do not feel uninformed. I do not feel the intelligence was bad. Insufficient? Of course. Intelligence is always insufficient. But that does not mean it was deliberately manipulated; that does not mean it was planted; that does not mean anyone did anything but the very best he or she could do in good faith.

   The fundamental question I posed earlier still stands. Even if you accuse the President of doing all of what his critics are saying he did, was it bad to have gone into Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein? Until critics either in the Congress or the media will come forward and say, we used bad intelligence to make the bad decision and the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power, they cannot, in my view, sustain their criticism. They cannot fault this President unless they are willing to say in this instance what we can say in the two other instances I have described.

   Intelligence was flawed in the Sudan. Would the world be better off if we had not destroyed that plant? Yes. The intelligence was flawed in Belgrade. Would we be better off if we had not destroyed the Chinese Embassy? The answer is yes. If the intelligence was flawed in Iraq, the same question still applies: Would we be better off if we had not toppled Saddam Hussein? Until someone is willing to answer that question yes, I am not willing to give credence to their complaints about this President and this White House.

4C) Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I have been here for a while and listened to the remarks such as those just given by my colleagues from the great State of Texas, but quite honestly I cannot understand how it is possible to criticize the President for the action that he took in Operation Iraqi Freedom and at the same time ask the President to go forward in an action in Liberia.

    That being said, I think it is incumbent upon us on the Republican side of this House to point out that after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it had become apparent that the United States needed, the United States was required to be more vigilant about terrorism and weapons proliferation and pay particular attention to the prospect of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of groups or states that would use them against American interests, American interests either here at home or abroad. And unfortunately, over the prior 10 years we have seen that with attacks in Saudi Arabia, the Khobar Towers, the bombing of the Cole and, of course, the attacks here on September 11.

    The Bush administration, the Clinton administration, indeed, the United Nations all agreed that Saddam Hussein possessed a significant biological and chemical capability in 1998 when the inspectors were withdrawn. There is broad agreement that Saddam Hussein, different from any other leader, had proven himself capable of using these weapons for offensive purposes and not merely in a defensive posture.

    Where those weapons are today falls into one of several categories. They may still be hidden. Saddam Hussein had become a master of concealment. Please remember that in 1995 the United Nations was preparing to lift sanctions believing that Iraq had disarmed. It was only the defection of Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Jamal and the revelation that significant weapons were presented that halted the United Nations from lifting the sanctions in 1995.

    Perhaps Hussein did destroy the weapons after the inspectors left in 1998. It seems preposterous on its face, but while this was unlikely given his other behavior, the burden of proof was clearly still on Saddam Hussein, not the United States, not President Bush and not the United Nations to demonstrate the destruction of the weapons had indeed occurred.

    There is also the possibility that the weapons had degraded over time or were destroyed in the bombing or looted during the first combat phase in Iraqi Freedom. It does not really matter. The disorder and political uncertainty we are witnessing in post-war Iraq, while at one level unsettling, are to some extent a reflection of how completely Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime dominated and dictated Iraqi life.

    There are efforts in the Congress to employ a full investigation into these difficult issues to understand whether any mistakes were made and to take action to fix them in fulfillment of Congress's important oversight responsibilities.

    To date, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence reject a broader probe of the weapons of mass destruction issue.

    I believe that Congress is exercising its oversight authority and has set in place procedures to review comprehensively and on a bipartisan basis the intelligence surrounding Iraq prior to the outbreak of war and to take into account any dissenting views on the Iraqi threat within the intelligence community.

    People who have lived in a police state with no freedom of speech are unlikely to volunteer information until stability and security are achieved in Iraq. We must remember 30 years of living under a dictatorship cannot be reversed overnight.

    But the most important point is this: A free Iraq makes American and its allies safer by removing a destabilizing force in the region, removing a regime that pursued weapons of mass destruction, eliminating a state sponsor of terrorism and, ultimately, by serving as a living example to the people of the Middle East of the benefits of freedom and democracy.

4D) Efforts by North Korea Related to the Proliferation of Nuclear

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HASTINGS OF FLORIDA

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

   The Clerk read as follows:

   Amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:

    At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

   EFFORTS BY NORTH KOREA RELATING TO THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

    SEC. __. It is the sense of Congress that the President should utilize all diplomatic options to ensure that the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea does not engage in efforts relating to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.

   The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?

   There was no objection.

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss a very serious issue, but I may not need to continue my discussion if I could get the attention of the chairman. I might place my remarks in the RECORD if the Chair would speak with reference to the matter.

   Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

   Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, although a point of order could be made against this amendment, I think it certainly does no harm to restate what is clearly the position of the United States, so I am prepared to accept this amendment.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss a very serious issue--the failure of North Korea to comply with a number of non-proliferation treaties and agreements, and the failure of the President to effectively resolve the escalating tension between the United States and North Korea. So far, little has been achieved and Pyongyang continues its race to manufacture nuclear weapons.

   The existence of a North Korean nuclear weapons program poses a real and imminent threat to the populations of South Korea, Japan, and North Korea, and to the U.S. Armed Forces stationed in that region. But most importantly, it poses a threat to global security interests.

   Given the escalating tensions with North Korea, I have introduced an amendment to the Foreign Operations Bill that urges the President to work towards a peaceful resolution to this impasse before the situation escalates any further.

   My amendment simply says, ``It is the sense of Congress that the President of the United States is called upon to utilize all diplomatic options to redirect North Korean efforts away from nuclear weapons proliferation.''

   I know that most Members of Congress deeply believe that engagement, be it bilateral or multilateral, with North Korea is needed to defuse the tension between the two countries, and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It will take a concerted effort to transform the conflict, engaging many different parts of the system simultaneously, over a period of time.

   A diplomatic track could pave the way to North Korea ending its nuclear program. Engaging rhetoric, alliance building, diplomatic efforts aimed at halting North Korea's nuclear program are all options to successfully redirect North Korean efforts away from nuclear weapons proliferation.

   My amendment calls on the President to use coalitions, arms-control accords, and weapons inspections because these are methods of conflict resolution he has often ignored. If we don't incorporate all available nonproliferation tools to redirect North Korean efforts away from nuclear weapons, then military intervention will again be the only national security policy at our disposal.

   Unless we do develop a plan, this standoff will continue until tensions soar even further. Now is the time for resolute diplomacy that sends a clear message against nuclear proliferation; now is the time for the President to actively engage in renewed dialogue.

   I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

• [End Insert]

   The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

   The amendment was agreed to.

4E) Independent Commission on WMD in Iraq

AMENDMENT NO. 8 OFFERED BY MS. JACKSON-LEE OF TEXAS

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

   The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

   The text of the amendment is as follows:

   Amendment No. 8 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:

    At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON WEAPONS OF MASS DESTUCTION IN IRAQ

    SEC. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to prohibit the establishment of an independent commission to study the basis of the determination of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, including any written or oral statements as to the recent purchase by Iraq of uranium in Africa.

   Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

   The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona reserves a point of order against the amendment.

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I do wish to pose a question before I address my amendment, if I could, to the ranking member of the committee.

   Previously, I had mentioned the importance of involving women in the international peace process. I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from New York on the question of women in the international peace process. I had mentioned that the United Nations had a peace commission established for the purpose of appointing women to that commission. It has not been implemented, to my knowledge. But my general question is the value of encouraging and utilizing women in international peace negotiations around the world.

   Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

   Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentlewoman, because I think this is an absolutely critical point to be made. In countries where women are more involved, where there are more women in government, there clearly is a greater effort towards peace, towards collaboration to avoiding the horrors of war. So I want to applaud the gentlewoman for her initiative and for her focus on women and peace, and I do hope that we can work together to ensure that these kinds of efforts around the world are supported. I thank the gentlewoman.

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am gratified by the response I have gotten from the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations; and I am very pleased that we might be able to work on that.

   The amendment that I wish to discuss very briefly is in the backdrop or on the eve of the announcement of the 9/11 commission's report dealing with the horrific tragedy of 9/11.

   It seems somewhat questioning that this body would not want to support the creation of a commission to deal with the weapons of mass destruction, simply finding out the truth. I do realize that, as we speak, there is an ongoing investigation by the intelligence committees, I believe both in the House and the other body; but it is true that soldiers now are still dying, even after the war was declared over in Iraq. It is also true that the American people deserve the truth, and that the question dealing with the purchase of uranium from Africa in the State of the Union address by the President is not the only question on the issue of intelligence gathering.

   All of the world's eyes were on Secretary of State Powell's presentation before the United Nations utilized to encourage the United Nations Security Council to vote for, if you will, a preemptive attack against Iraq on the basis of the existence of weapons of mass destruction. I believe this is not a question of ``gotcha,'' it is not a question of one-upmanship, it is not a question of partisanship. It is simply a question of telling the truth to the American people.

   There were commissions and investigatory bodies that investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the assassination of Martin Luther King, the incident into the China satellite question, Watergate, Whitewater, if you will. All of these warranted investigations by this government.

   It seems to me less than disingenuous to be able to deny the right of the American people to find out the entire truth about the decision to use a preemptive strike against Iraq on the basis that the United States of America was about to be under imminent attack.

   This debate on a commission has nothing to do with the wrongness of Saddam Hussein and the collective opinion that Saddam Hussein was a despotic and horrific leader.

[Time: 23:30]

   This is nothing to do with the idea of whether or not our brave young men and women are willing to put themselves on the front line to defend this Nation. All it has to do with is for this body to recognize the importance of an independent commission.

   I would say that this commission should not be implemented until the completion of the work of the intelligence committees of both bodies and then, ultimately, when a final report should be rendered. But I do believe that it is extremely important that we have a submission on the weapons of mass destruction and their existence and the paper trail, if you will, and who said what, and what oversight there was with respect to the whole question of the attack on Iraq. There was no declaration of war under the United States Constitution article I, section 8; and because of that, I believe the American people are owed a thorough and full investigation on this question.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004, and I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to support this amendment.

   This amendment says, ``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to prohibit the establishment of an independent commission to study the basis of the determination of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, including any written or oral statements as to the recent purchase by Iraq of uranium in Africa.''

   This is a simple limiting amendment that will ensure that no funds are utilized to prevent the Members of this Congress and the American people from learning the truth about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This amendment prevents the use of funds to prohibit or impede congressional efforts to learn the truth about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the accuracy of United States intelligence sources on the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

   The events that give rise to this amendment have been well documented. On January 28, 2003, President Bush delivered his State of the Union Address. In that address President Bush said that Saddam Hussein attempted to buy uranium in Africa. The intelligence report that President Bush relied on to make that allegation was proven to be fraudulent. There were also credible indications that the Bush administration had reason to know the intelligence report was fraudulent before the State of the Union Address was delivered.

   All of these allegations raise questions, and show the need for an investigation into U.S. intelligence methods and the use of that intelligence report by the Bush administration. This amendment ensures that no funds will be spent to create unnecessary obstacles that prevent such an investigation from taking place. Specifically, this amendment ensures that no funds will be used to prevent the establishment of an independent commission to study the allegations of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the credibility of U.S. intelligence reports, and the Bush administration's use of those intelligence reports. These issues affect every American citizen and it is important to every Member of Congress's constituents that the truth be known.

   Mr. Chairman, this amendment is important for learning the truth about the justifications for which the United States went to war. As of yesterday at 5 p.m., over 150 brave young American men and women have lost their lives fighting in Operation Iraqi Freedom. These courageous soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice to bring peace to the people of Iraq and the world. It is important that we learn before another soldier loses his or her life if our justifications for war were accurate. My amendment will prevent funds from being used to prevent a full inquiry. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important amendment.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

   Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes. I just want to say before I make my point of order that, once again, I appreciate the amendment of the gentlewoman. The one she was talking about, I had it in front of me before. Our bill has nothing in any way, shape, or form, or touches, impinges, deals with in any way, shape, or form on an independent commission to study the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Ours is a foreign assistance bill; it has nothing to do with a commission here in the United States. So it would be absolutely impossible that we would have anything in here that would prohibit this.

   POINT OF ORDER

   Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI against the amendment which the gentlewoman from Texas has offered.

   The amendment offered, once again, invokes a textual ``double-negative.''

[Page: H7432]

As a result, it constitutes an affirmative direction or statement of affirmative intent which would be in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

   The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from Texas wish to be heard on the point of order?

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would. I had hoped the esteemed gentleman from Arizona (Chairman KOLBE) would waive the point of order in his discussion. However, let me say that the clarification on the record was very helpful, that nothing in this bill would prohibit the establishment of a commission investigating the weapons of mass destruction. I would argue on the basis only of hoping or wishing or asking that the chairman waive the point of order so that this amendment could go forward to be sure that there is no such language to prohibit the establishment of a weapons of mass destruction investigatory commission.

   But I will only say that if that is not the case, then I will yield back to the distinguished Chairman, saying that the clarification has been made.

   The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.

   For the reasons stated by the Chair earlier today, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas employs a double-negative that effectively proposes to change law in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is, therefore, sustained; and the amendment is not in order.

**************************
HOMELAND SECURITY
**************************

5A) Additional Funding for Homeland Security

AMENDMENT NO. 1317

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

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

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

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

   Imagine that, more devastating than September 11, 2001.

   The underlying legislation before the Senate is the Fiscal Year 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. It provides more than $28 billion for a variety of programs, from better border security to natural disaster response efforts. But while this is a step

   forward, the legislation does not accomplish enough. It does not provide the investments in protections that the Nation so desperately needs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   ..... are the only part of an international boundary that the federal government invests no money in terms of security....... Most ports, the best you get is a chain link fence with maybe some barbed wire.

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

   [They] are the only part of an international boundary that the federal government invests no money in terms of security. ..... Most ports, [he said] the best you get is a chain link fence with maybe some barbed wire.

   Comforting? Is that comforting?

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

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

[Page: S9685]

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

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

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

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

   The regulatory impact on the maritime industry will be significant, and the time line for implementing the new robust maritime security requirements is exceptionally short.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Insufficient funding is the most significant challenge in making transit systems as safe and secure as possible.

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

   TSA has yet to exert full responsibility for the security of any transportation mode other than aviation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page: S9686]

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

   The needs are great.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page: S9687]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   I ask unanimous consent that certain Senators have their names added as cosponsors: Senators LIEBERMAN, CANTWELL, and STABENOW.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FITZGERALD). Without objection, it is so ordered.

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

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

   Mr. COCHRAN. 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.

[Page: S9688]

   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

[Page: S9689]

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

[Page: S9690]

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.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know we have been notified that one Senator is on the way over here to speak on this amendment before the Senator makes his point of order. We have at least one, maybe two Senators who wish to speak on this amendment.

   I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Mr. President, the full committee conducted careful and extensive hearings last year. We had seven Department heads here before the committee. The committee membership was there. The committee hearings were well attended. Senator Stevens and I carefully selected witnesses to appear before those hearings. There were Governors who appeared. There were mayors who appeared.

   There were members of county commissions who appeared. First responders appeared. Firemen, policemen, health personnel appeared at those hearings. And we have gone over those hearings carefully. The staff has gone over those hearings and painstakingly gleaned from the rich testimony that was submitted by these public officials and public servants. Based on those and subsequent hearings, we decided that these are needs that ought to be addressed. And so I have tried to address these needs in the amendment.

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

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

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

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

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. THOMAS). The Senator from New York.

   Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee and of the full committee, the Senator from West Virginia, for his constancy in sounding the alarm. He is the Paul Revere of the homeland security debate. Because every time we come to the floor to debate and consider provisions that we believe will make our country safer, the Senator from West Virginia is there sounding the alarm.

   This time I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will respond to that alarm which he has once again sounded, because his amendment reflects a full and complete understanding of what we know, what the experts tell us is absolutely essential to meeting the homeland security needs of our Nation.

   As has already been referred to in many different settings, the amendment the Senator presents to us contains the best thinking of people who

[Page: S9691]

have considered our vulnerabilities and have honestly assessed what it will cost so we can look into the eyes of our constituents and say: We have done the best we knew to do.

   Recently the independent Homeland Security Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations, a task force chaired by former Senator Warren Rudman, issued its third report regarding the state of our homeland defense. While the report noted that we had made progress and that positive action in a number of areas had occurred since September 11, there was still much to be done and we remained woefully unprepared.

   The report, ``First Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared,'' says it all in its title. It reminds us as to how much work we truly have in front of us if we intend to address these needs honestly and to equip our frontline homeland defenders with the resources they desperately need.

   Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared

   The United States has not reached a sufficient national level of emergency preparedness and remains dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil, particularly one involving chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents, or coordinated high-impact conventional means.

   How much more specific and dramatic a conclusion from independent experts do we need to have before we act to pass overwhelmingly the amendment that has been presented to us?

   The report also emphasizes the pivotal and primary role our first responders play in our national homeland defense:

   America's local emergency responders--

   We are talking about our police officers, our firefighters, our EMTs, and others who are on the front line, who need to be given the resources that will equip them to prevent horrific attacks, as well as to respond--

   will always be the first to confront a terrorist incident and will play the central role in imagining its immediate consequences. ..... the United States--

   Namely, the U.S. Government, not the New York State government, or the New York City government, or the Buffalo government, or the West Virginia government, but the United States Government--

   has both a responsibility and a critical need too provide them [our first responders] with equipment, training, and other necessary resources to do their jobs safely and effectively.

   Again, I don't know how much more specific we need to be. The efforts of these first responders in the minutes and hours following an attack will be critical to saving lives, reestablishing order, and preventing mass panic.

   The report speaks about the heroic police and fire professionals who entered the World Trade Center on September 11. They acknowledge what all of us saw: that our emergency responders will be there; they will answer the call; they will perform their duties. What will we do for them?

   In providing just a few examples of the needs of these brave police officers and firefighters and EMTs that are unmet, I have picked a few very representative, dramatic examples from the report:

   Two-thirds of our fire departments do not meet the consensus fire service standard for minimum safe staffing levels.

   On average, fire departments across the country have only enough radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift, and breathing apparatuses for only one-third. Only 10 percent of fire departments in the United States have the personnel and equipment to respond to a building collapse.

   Most States' public health labs still lack basic equipment and expertise to respond adequately to a chemical or biological attack. Seventy-five percent of State laboratories report being overwhelmed by too many testing requests.

   Most cities do not have the necessary equipment to determine what kind of hazardous materials emergency responders may be facing.

   Police departments in cities across the country do not have the protective gear to safely secure a site following an attack using weapons of mass destruction.

   I read these statistics, but I also know firsthand from speaking to police officers and firefighters, police chiefs and fire commissioners, and others throughout New York who tell me exactly what we were reading here from this report.

   Now, I have to say it is troubling to me that, while we know we have not done enough to equip and fund and provide the resources needed by our first responders, we are seeing, because of budget constraints, cities and counties cutting back on their personnel. According to the International City-County Management Association, the average number of full-time, paid police employees for jurisdictions between 250,000 and 500,000 residents, today, is 16 percent below the

   figure for 2001. Why is anyone surprised by that? We have seen countless stories about the budget cutbacks that States and counties and cities are experiencing.

   Police departments and fire departments are not immune. In the city of New York, after the heroic, incredible performance of these brave firefighters, they watched helplessly as fire stations were closed. So this is something that we know is happening. So not only are we failing to fully fund our first responders, we are seeing the numbers cut back.

   When you think about what this report tells us and what the estimate is as to what is necessary for us to protect ourselves, clearly, we are asking that we honestly assess where we are and the funding that is needed. The report says we need approximately $100 billion over the next 5 years--approximately $20 billion a year for 5 years. We spend $5 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are asking for 4 months of the expenditures of those two military actions and postconflict activities to make sure we are safe here at home.

   These preliminary figures are based on the assessments that are coming directly from first responders and from communities. They were developed in partnership with the Concord Coalition and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment. It may be conservative, but it is the best assessment we could find.

   First, it assumes, however, that State and local governments will continue to spend somewhere between $26 billion and $76 billion of their own funds for homeland security over the next 5 years.

   Second, in looking at specific needs, particularly the need for a communications system that actually works and includes everybody, the task force erred on the side of conservative figures they obtained from communications policy experts.

   Third, many law enforcement associations could not even assess their own needs. They don't have time to stop and do a survey or try to hire a consultant. So they did the best they could in assessing what they thought their needs were. Clearly, as the task force has pointed out, we should have a thorough national needs assessment. Under Senator Byrd's leadership, he did hold very thorough hearings out of which we got some specific information, and we need to continue a comprehensive needs assessment so that we do know what our needs are so that we can better plan how to meet them.

   We certainly would not do for our men and women in uniform what we do for our men and women in uniform at home. I have the honor of serving on the Armed Services Committee. It is a painstaking process to determine what our troops need and how to best plan that they can be protected. I am very proud of that process.

   I think it is time we did the same for our front-line defenders, our soldiers in the war against terrorism here at home--primarily our police officers, our firefighters, and our EMTs.

   Among the many things we need to be doing, the task force concludes--and I agree--is to create those interoperable communications systems so that first responders can communicate seamlessly across borders, between police and firefighters, and certainly across borders of jurisdictions. We need to extend nationally the Emergency 911 system. I am very proud to be working with my colleague from Montana, Senator Burns, on groundbreaking legislation to extend the E-911 system. I think it will certainly move us forward as long as we fund it.

   We need to enhance our urban search and rescue capabilities. We need to enhance our public health preparedness, particularly by strengthening and expanding the quality and number of laboratories that can track diseases, that can quickly diagnose some kind of biological, chemical, or radiological event.

[Page: S9692]

   This report reflects what I hear from all over New York and, of course, from all over the country, whether you are in Los Angeles, where every time the terror alert goes to orange, it costs that city $1.5 million a week and another $1 million a week to protect the Los Angeles International Airport; or whether you are in Denver, a city that has incurred many millions of dollars for emergency preparedness and has purchased mobile emergency equipment but still doesn't have an adequate communications system;

   or whether you are in Douglas County, NE, which needs resources to buy protective suits for first responders, this is a national problem. Certainly in New York, I know firsthand how inadequately funded many of our brave men and women are.

   I know that under the leadership of the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, whom I commend, the committee has worked very hard to come up with a good bill and, given the budgetary constraints under which the committee has operated, they have done an incredible job.

   The problem is that the budget resolution we adopted last spring did not adequately reflect the real costs of homeland security. That is why the Senator from West Virginia has an amendment which more honestly assesses those needs. It provides an additional $1.7 billion: $729.5 million for first responders; $602 million for maritime and land security; $238 million for border security; $100 million for air cargo security; and $80 million for chemical facility security.

   It is hard to argue with the EPA's own figures that we have 123 chemical facilities located throughout the Nation that have toxic worst-case scenarios where more than 1 million people would be in the so-called vulnerable zone and could be at risk of exposure to a cloud of toxic gas.

   Remember the terrible accident in Bhopal, India? Remember that? We have 123 chemical facilities that could produce this kind of extraordinary horror.

   We have 600 facilities that could threaten between 100,000 and 1 million people, and 2,300 more that would threaten between 10,000 and 100,000 people in these so-called vulnerable zones.

   When I read statistics such as that, it has to make one feel vulnerable, and it certainly makes me, as a Senator with responsibility for my constituents, sick at heart. I do not think any of us want to see these scenarios ever come true and, thank goodness, we have been spared that since September 11.

   But that is not the way a great country plans to defend itself. If that were the case, we could have shut down our entire military. After the War of 1812, we could have just said forget it. After the Civil War, we could have said forget it. We could say we do not think we will ever have anything bad in the world happen again, so let's just send everybody home. Let's just let the tanks rust. Let's just give up preparing for the worst-case scenario which will more than likely make it possible for us to avoid such an occurrence.

   That is what we are doing when it comes to homeland security. The Congressional Budget Office estimated it will take $80 million to conduct vulnerability assessments associated with our chemical plants. This amendment provides the money for that purpose.

   Regarding the first responder funding in the Byrd amendment, there is additional money for State and local grants, $250 million, and I especially appreciate an additional $250 million for high-threat urban area grants; $150 million for FIRE Act grants so we can fund the program fully at the authorized level; and, finally, $79.5 million for the interoperable communications equipment I have talked about in this Chamber so many times since September 11.

   We learned tragically that our police and fire departments could not talk with each other. We learned that people

   coming to our rescue to assist us could not communicate with the New York City police and fire departments.

   Later in the debate, I will talk about State and local grants and how important they are and how strongly I believe the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Ridge should disburse those funds using a threat base rather than a per capita formula. Right now I want to underscore how important it is to get more money into this high-threat urban area category.

   In January, I gave a speech at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. In that speech, I made some recommendations and released a survey about what I had found as I surveyed cities and counties throughout my State: Seventy percent of New York cities and counties had not received any Federal homeland security funding since September 11. Since January, some money has come forward; more has been appropriated.

   But I was in Buffalo, NY, on Sunday speaking with the mayor. They have not received a penny of the money we have appropriated. It is either tied up in Washington or it is tied up in the State capital.

   Either explanation is, to me, unacceptable. We need to do more, and in that speech I called for a domestic defense fund.

   In March, I proposed that we provide direct funding and we include $1 billion for high-threat urban areas. Later that month, I offered an amendment to the budget resolution that would have provided funding for the domestic defense fund, including the $1 billion for high-threat urban areas for fiscal year 2003. Unfortunately, the amendment was narrowly defeated but at least we began a dialog and a debate about high-threat areas with critical infrastructure, with dense populations.

   We are making some progress and, in fact, the supplemental we considered for funding the action in Iraq in April did include $700 million for high-threat urban areas. I thank my colleagues for that funding. I think we all recognize how critical that funding is.

   The Department of Homeland Security has begun to allocate high-threat funding based on factors such as credible threat, vulnerability, population, mutual aid agreements, and identified needs of public agencies. And many communities, not just New York and Washington but Houston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, Kansas City, New Orleans, Memphis, Cleveland, Charleston, among others, across our country have received this high-threat funding. This will help us shore up our defenses against our most vulnerable targets.

   Regarding New York, I would give anything if terrorists did not have such an interest in New York but we have to accept that reality. New York is such a symbol of our Nation. It is such an incredibly diverse, dynamic place, the most fascinating and exciting city in the world, and it is going to draw that kind of attention. Therefore, we need the support we have been getting and that the Byrd amendment will provide in additional funding that, believe me, we can put to good use.

   In recent articles that have appeared in national newspapers, such as USA Today, I read about communities that got homeland security funding and did not know what to do with it. I said: If you really do not know what to do with the money, send it to New York; we have more needs than we can possibly meet.

   If we are serious about defending our Nation, then we have to be serious about putting money behind that commitment. What the Byrd amendment does is to say very straightforwardly: We have not done enough. We may have done all we could within the constraints of the budget resolution, and for that I commend the chairman and the ranking member, but the budget resolution was inadequate.

   We do not have a budget resolution for our military and occupational expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are not even in the budget. There is not one penny. We passed a $398 billion defense budget last week and there is not one penny for Iraq and Afghanistan.

   We did not worry about the budget resolution when it came to supporting our troops. We did what we thought we had to do. Well, we should do the same when it comes to protecting us at home. How on Earth can we do less?

   So, yes, we have made some progress since we were attacked. How could we not? How negligent would we have been if we had not done what at least we have started to try to achieve in providing more support? But we have not done nearly enough.

   History will judge us harshly if we are found wanting when it comes to defending ourselves on our own soil.

   So I hope for the sake of our country, for the sake of our citizens, we will listen to former Senator Warren Rudman

[Page: S9693]

and the task force, we will listen to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, and we will do our duty, we will vote for the Byrd amendment, and we will send a clear signal to friend and foe alike that we intend to prevent, in every way possible, any further terrorism on our shores. But if anyone dares to take us on, we intend to be ready.

   Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?

   Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.

   Mr. REID. I appreciate very much the statement of the Senator from New York. Senator Byrd and I were talking earlier. No State has suffered as did New York as a result of the September 11 incident. We all know that. But I bring to the Senator's attention that I offered an amendment earlier today saying that one of the facts that should be taken into consideration is how many tourists are in the community within any given time. Of course, New York is a tourist-oriented community. People are there all the time for various reasons--conventions, just wanting to see the Big Apple. Even today that is in fact the case.

   One of the facts I brought to the attention of the Senate the other day is that in Las Vegas, on any given day, there are about 300,000 tourists, and the Senator would agree, I am sure, that the people of Las Vegas--law enforcement, fire, emergency medical responders, first-line responders generally--have as much of an obligation to take care of someone visiting Las Vegas from New York as they do someone who lives there on a full-time basis. The Senator would agree with that, would she not?

   Mrs. CLINTON. I certainly would agree with the Senator from Nevada. I believe that is a factor that Secretary Ridge should consider in a threat-based formula where we have large crowds of people who come for attractions such as those that the Senator has in Las Vegas or we have in New York City and certainly other places around our country. That should be taken into account because our police officers, our firefighters are constantly on duty because there is a constant stream of people coming from all over the world to enjoy the attractions.

   Mr. REID. I also ask the Senator this: One of the other considerations I brought to the attention of the Senate is that on any given day in Las Vegas there are about 75,000 people from foreign countries. But in looking at some of the statistics I have, even though we have almost 2 1/2 million people who visit Las Vegas yearly who come from other countries, New York City--not the State of New York but New York City--has 5 1/2 million people who come from foreign countries to visit. So on any given day in New York City, instead of the 75,000 we have in Las Vegas, the Senator has 150,000, approximately.

   Now, would the Senator agree that someone who is visiting New York City from Turkey, Germany, or Japan, the first-line responders have an obligation to make sure they are taken care of in the event of an emergency just as someone who is a New York resident?

   Mrs. CLINTON. I certainly do agree with that.

   Mr. REID. I hope there is some consideration given to people who are in New York City, Las Vegas, all of the States--Orlando, FL, where we have Disney World--that have these large numbers of tourists come from various parts of our country and around the world, and I hope the American people understand that. I compliment the Senator from New York for her outstanding statement in bringing to the attention of the people of this country and the Senate the information that only can come from someone who represents the State of New York.

   Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator from Nevada.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

   Mrs. CLINTON. Certainly.

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

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

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

   I yield the floor.

   Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator from West Virginia and I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

   Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Byrd amendment. The Senator from West Virginia has clearly identified that there are inadequate resources being devoted to homeland security, and the paramount concern and responsibility of this body is to protect the homeland. We have to do that. It cannot simply be protected by rhetoric. There have to be real resources applied to the task.

   In the wake of 9/11, this Congress laid out very clearly and very deliberately, after much consideration and consultation, major legislation such as the Transportation Security Act of 2002, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, and the USA PATRIOT Act. All of these legislative pronouncements laid out a framework to secure our homeland and, as Senator Byrd points out, we are not living up to the requirements that were clearly identified by that legislation in terms of appropriations.

   Specifically addressed by Senator Byrd's amendment is a shortfall in seaports, Coast Guard, and land transit security of $602 million; police, fire, and emergency medical teams of $729.5 million; security at United States borders with Canada and Mexico of $238.5 million; air cargo security, $100 million; and chemical facility security, $80 million.

   Now, all of these protections are imperative because what we have discovered from those who wish us ill--terrorist cells--is first they are sophisticated; second, they are ruthless; and third, they tend to strike at areas which are the least protected, not the most protected.

   We have made significant improvements in our air transportation system in terms of passenger travel, screening passengers, and I do not think most security consultants would say that would be the primary route of a new attack against us.

   We still have miles to go with respect to seaport security, maritime security, security at the borders, air cargo security. Again, given the nature of our opponents, our adversaries, it is likely they would look to these places, rather than areas we have reinforced or fortified, to launch another attack.

   The Transportation Security Agency, as we all know, is responsible for all modes of transportation security. Yet the TSA, as I have suggested, has focused almost exclusively on our air transportation system with passenger travel throughout the United States and throughout the world. With a $4.8 billion budget, TSA has committed only $86 million for maritime and land security activities in this budget proposed by the administration. In contrast, $4.3 billion was requested for aviation security. In fact, the budget requests for administrative costs at TSA, their headquarters and the mission support centers, consist of amounts to $218 million, 2.5 times greater than the total request for maritime and land security activities.

   As a result, the budget proposed by the President, the budget Senator Byrd seeks to amend, does not fully recognize the potential threats to our

[Page: S9694]

ports, to our interstate buses, trucks that carry hazardous material, trains, our transit system, chemical factories--and the list, unfortunately, is longer.

   Let me for a moment concentrate on one area of particular concern; that is, public transit. In the last Congress, I had the opportunity, responsibility, and privilege of being the chairman of the subcommittee in the Banking Committee that dealt with transit issues. We had several hearings with respect to numerous transit issues but particularly with respect to transit security. We found, and the GAO verified, there is a huge demand for resources to protect our transit systems, our subway systems, our bus systems. This bill hardly measures up to that.

   The Byrd amendment--and I commend the Senator--would increase our efforts in transit security by $57 million. Frankly, based upon the testimony I heard last year before my committee, this is literally the proverbial drop in the bucket. There are some estimates--one by the American Public Transportation Association--that the needs for transit security through all the transit systems in this country would amount to $6 billion, primarily in the areas of communication, surveillance, detection systems, personnel, and training.

   For the benefit of my colleagues, I will state that in the wake of the tragedy of 9/11, there was something remarkable taking place that minimized our casualities both in New York City and in Washington, DC. Particularly in Washington, DC, the subway system was the major source or route of evacuation for literally thousands and thousands of people. This system in Washington has been the beneficiary of a great deal of attention. It might be because of the proximity to the appropriators but, indeed, it had effective communications, it had a well-managed and well-trained group of operators, and they were able to move people literally underneath the Pentagon even though that building had been attacked. In New York City, the transit operators, these individual transit police officers and station masters, were able successfully to evacuate the subways and move people out because of communication systems, because of training, because of the infrastructure already there.

   Those two systems--New York City and Washington, DC--are some of the most sophisticated in the country. Other parts of the country, other areas do not have the communication systems; they do not have the training; they do not have the expertise. That would go for probably every system, to varying degrees, throughout my country.

   In my home State of Rhode Island, we have a statewide bus system, which is a good system, but they would be the first to say they need more training; they need more communications equipment; they need redundant communication systems in the event of an emergency so they can get through to the operators and the operators can get through to their dispatchers and controllers. That is just one example of the tremendous need for help for transit security.

   There are approximately 6,000 transit agencies in the United States. These transit agencies provide over 9 billion trips per year, representing 43 billion passenger miles.

   Yet there is very minimal funding in this bill for transit security.

   Once again, if you believe, as I, that our adversaries are cunning, ruthless, and will strike at the most vulnerable portions of our country, transit is a target that I am sure is being considered. We have to do something to protect our riders, the literally millions of riders a year.

   I hope we can support enthusiastically the Byrd amendment. It would represent a significant increase in our homeland security. It would address the areas that have been neglected in this bill sent to us by the administration.

   Once again I emphasize, particularly in the area of transit security, even if we were to pass the Byrd amendment, if we wanted to ensure that all of our transit systems have the most up-to-date equipment and communications, that all of their personnel were well trained, we would be talking not about an additional several million dollars but we would be talking about literally billions of dollars.

   I commend the Senator from West Virginia for his leadership. This is not the first time he has come to this floor to argue eloquently and passionately that we should defend our homeland. I am sure it will not be the last. I hope we can support this amendment.

   Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

   Mr. REED. I yield.

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

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

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

   Mr. REED. I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

   Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of the Members. I thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi for giving me an opportunity to spend a few minutes before making a motion on the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, to give me a chance to express my views on this amendment and to begin by thanking my seatmate and colleague of these many years for offering this amendment. Once again, his eloquence and his leadership and his vision are giving this body an opportunity to do something right for the American people.

   We have all felt the sense of anxiety in this country since the startling events of September 11, 2001. There have certainly been no limits to the number of speeches given to the importance of making our Nation more secure, taking steps to see to it that our airports, our harbors, our borders, receive the kind of support and backing needed to keep this Nation as secure as we possibly can be, with the full understanding that as a nation, an open society, a nation where freedom and liberties are extended to all, this is not an easy path to walk--to be an open, free nation and simultaneously to be more secure. How we balance those interests requires a great deal of thought, a great deal of work.

   The Senator is offering a reflection of what has been suggested by the Council on Foreign Relations in the report analyzing where we are today, 2 years after the events of September 11.

   To quote the authors of that report, we are ``still dangerously unprepared, underfunded for a catastrophic terrorist attack.''

   I think we ought to take their words to heart and we ought to do what we can to see to it that first responders--our fire departments, our police departments--are going to receive the kind of backing and support they ought to be getting from the Federal Government.

   What the distinguished Senator from West Virginia is offering is a modest proposal. The money is not significant, I know that. But when you consider the gap that exists--the Council on Foreign Relations suggests that we are underfunding first responders by more than $98 billion. That is a huge amount of money. But if you go even further, reading the report, the number actually is twice that amount when you consider what needs to be done at other levels of government as well, to maximize our protection.

   Unfortunately, we are coming way short of that number. So while we talk about this issue and identify the various problems that exist, this 62-page report, released on Monday, points out that we have a lot more work to do.

   Senator Byrd has offered us an opportunity to close some of that gap. That is all, it is just some of this gap that will be closed by his amendment. I am disturbed that we are not going to be doing more. I fully support what the Senator from West Virginia is offering, but I think the American public would expect more. I suspect most did not have an opportunity to read this report or even hear news reports about it. But

[Page: S9695]

as certainly as I am standing here today, there are going to be events that will come. I wish I didn't have to say that, but I think all of us know that to be the case. From what we are witnessing in Iraq today, what we have seen in Liberia, what we have seen in various targets around the globe, none of us should operate under the illusion that we are going to be immune from any future attacks because of what we have done since 9/11.

   There are those gathered in places around the globe, as I share these words this afternoon, who are planning to attack this country, whether abroad or at home. They are planning it. Be certain of it. They are going to look for the opportunities to do us great harm and great damage. Any conclusion other than that would be foolhardy. They are doing it, and the question is, What are we doing to see to it that we are maximizing the protection of the people we have been charged to represent?

   The painful conclusion is that we are not doing enough yet. Obviously, we cannot do this all at once, but we have a report telling us that after 2 years we are still woefully short of meeting those obligations. We have an opportunity. We have to make choices here. They are not comfortable choices, but we need to make these choices.

   The time will come when a judgment will be made, and the question will be asked of us: What did you do, when you knew better? You were being told over and over again that you hadn't done enough yet. What did you do on that day in July, prior to your August break, when you were given an opportunity by the Byrd amendment to invest more resources to make these first responders better prepared? Where were you? How did you cast your vote?

   Because the memories of 9/11, even after just 2 years, seem to be fading, it would be a catastrophic and tragic mistake, in my view, not to heed the counsel and advice of my

   colleague from West Virginia and step up and do what is right here and provide backing. I hope for unanimous support for this amendment. I cannot think of a more important or meaningful message we can send that we are prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to maximize the protections of our people within constitutional limitations.

   My fear is the less we do along the lines suggested by the Senator from West Virginia, the more likely we are to take steps to limit the freedoms of average Americans. That seems to be the direction we are heading, to restrain or prevent individuals from doing certain things or examining or investigating individual people, rather than to strengthen the first responders and provide more harbor protection, to see to it our harbors and ports are going to be better protected.

   Senator Byrd is offering us an opportunity, in a modest way, to answer that question that history will ask of us at some point. When you knew you were likely to be attacked again, when you knew you were likely to be victimized by terrorists, on that day in July when you were asked to make a choice to do more, to step to the plate, how did you cast your ballot? How did you represent your constituents when confronted with that choice? Senator Byrd is providing that opportunity to us this afternoon, and I hope our colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment to take a modest step, and that is all this is, to answer the deep concerns that have been expressed by our former colleague, Warren Rudman, and other individuals who prepared this report for the Council on Foreign Relations.

   This report is a serious document. These are serious conclusions reached by serious individuals who have done their homework. This is not a political document. It is a document that lays out, chapter and verse, where the shortcomings are and what needs to be done by this National Government to try to close these gaps. Senator Byrd is offering us that chance to do it.

   I thank him profoundly for this suggestion that he has made to us. I am going to have several amendments myself later on in this debate to deal with fire departments across the country to increase, if we can, the resources to see to it they can have the tools necessary to respond to the challenges they will see. This amendment is more comprehensive, the amendment being offered by Senator Byrd. We will have other suggestions to make as well. But this is the first opportunity for us to say that our memories have not faded.

   While others may focus on other events as they captivate the attention of the media, we remember what happened on 9/11. While there is no certainty we can stop it from happening again, we want to take the steps necessary to see to it that we make it that much harder for those who would do us harm to achieve their goals.

   For those reasons, I strongly endorse this amendment and urge my colleagues to do likewise by casting a vote in favor of the Byrd amendment.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

   Mr. COCHRAN. 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.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I realize this is not debatable.

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

   Now, Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment.

   I ask for the yeas and nays.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ALEXANDER). Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second.

   The yeas and nays were ordered.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the motion to waive?

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Mississippi has been very patient today. We have one additional Senator who says he is on his way. I am confident he is. So if the Senator from Mississippi would be patient, he should be here shortly.

   I note the absence of a quorum.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold?

   Mr. REID. I am happy to withhold. Of course I will.

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

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

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

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

[Page: S9696]

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

   I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

   Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia.

   There are a lot of important reasons to enact this amendment. There is no greater calling for the National Government now than to protect the homeland. We see all the instability in the world and the fact that Iraq has now become a magnet for a lot of bad guys in all the world who want to do damage to the United States. In Iraq, almost one American soldier a day is being assassinated.

   By the way, the assassinations are taking place in three different ways. On the eve of my arrival, 2 weeks ago, in Baghdad, very sadly and unfortunately, one of our Florida National Guard soldiers from Gainesville was assassinated. In this particular case, the soldier was on guard duty for a delegation that had gone to a meeting at the university. And in the hubbub of all the crowds at the university, this soldier was standing guard for the party that was meeting. The soldier was vulnerable because of the crowds. And our soldiers are vulnerable between that position and that position--being the upper part of the body armor, the Kevlar, and the helmet. And, in this particular case, in the hubbub of that crowd, someone tapped that soldier on the shoulder. He turned around, and he was shot in the face. That is one method of assassination.

   Another method is to use a landmine with a remote control device, and usually a landmine placed on a part of a road where the road narrows, so when the convoy comes along that area, the landmine can be detonated. And it is usually targeted at a lightly armored vehicle such as a humvee. We have had that happen a number of times.

   And then a third method, which has been used more frequently recently, is the use of the rocket-propelled grenades. In the case of the soldiers last night who were assassinated, it was being fired from a position behind bushes, near a roadside.

   But another method is where a convoy is moving out, and they are moving rapidly, and someone on a downtown street tries to insert into that convoy and then shoots an RPG either at the vehicle in front of them or to the rear of them.

   So, clearly, there is a lot of trauma and mischief that is going on in that part of the world. But it is a foretelling of what people want to do to the United States. It is not just the Fedayeen and it is not just the Baathists and it is not just the Saddam loyalists. Iraq is now attracting outsiders who want to do damage to the United States.

   So if they target there, clearly they are going to be targeting here as well. This, by the way, is another reason, when we try to protect ourselves against terrorists, our protection is only so good as the timeliness of our intelligence and the accuracy of our intelligence. Does that ring a bell? And I hope we get through all of that and get it straightened out as well.

   But the issue before us is the protection of the homeland. You cannot protect the homeland on the cheap. If the question is how we allocate the moneys--if it should go to tax cuts or protecting the homeland--then that gets to be a pretty simple answer. The people want the homeland protected.

   Although there is some measure of protection that is offered, now Senator Byrd has offered additional protection. The debate has already been held, and I will not repeat, except to emphasize one thought: Florida, my State, has 15 deepwater ports. It is a place of great vulnerability because of all the containers that come into this country, only 2 to 3 percent of them are checked.

   If we are looking for weapons as easily concealed, for example, as a shoulder-mounted heat-seeking missile that can bring down a commercial airliner, how easy that is to slip into the country in a container in port. Senator Byrd is offering a total of $610 million, $460 million over the existing $150 million in the bill, for expenses for port security. I can tell you every one of those port managers in my State--and I think I can speak also for the other ports of the other States--are strapped with so many expenses. They desperately need additional help for security at their ports.

   I rest my case. It is a matter of common sense in the protection of the homeland. I have only spoken about one part of the appropriations in this amendment. I encourage our colleagues to support Senator Byrd's amendment.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

   Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the hour has gotten late and the vote is nearly upon us, but I did not want this opportunity to pass by without commending my colleague from West Virginia on his amendment. When we talk about the need for homeland security and the efforts to safeguard the American people, Senator Byrd has been leading the charge here in the Senate, and here in Washington, every step of the way for the past 22 months. Tonight he again reminds us about putting the Nation's priorities in order. As he rightly argues, an additional $1.8 billion for increased port security, enhanced chemical and electrical security, and additional aid to our first responders struggling out there to protect Americans is no burden, it is an imperative.

   In the past several days, as I have prepared for this debate, I have had the opportunity to follow up with mayors across Massachusetts to see how they are coming along in their efforts to protect their citizens. They are working hard, and they are doing their best, but they are not getting the help they need. Mayor Ed Lambert in Fall River, MA, has, to date, only gotten $150,000 to protect his city of 95,000. One-hundred and fifty thousand dollars for a city that has had to reduce its police force by more than 30 police officers. He has the responsibility to protect an extremely important reservoir that serves 200,000 citizens of Southeastern Massachusetts and $150,000 doesn't get him very far.

   The Mayor of Holyoke, MA, Mike Sullivan, didn't even fare that well. His city is home to one of the nerve centers of the Northeast's electricity grid. And yet he has gotten no homeland security assistance to date to help defray the costs of protecting this piece of critical infrastructure which his police force constantly monitors. He has also gotten no instruction from the federal government regarding what he should be doing to keep it safe and secure.

   So if any of our colleagues wonder what is happening in the homeland or questioning whether first responders in their cities and towns need help, I recommend that they simply pick up the phone and call their mayors. The mayors and local officials will tell them what an extraordinary need there is. They will also tell them of the great pressure and anxiety they feel to try to do more to protect the public's safety at a time when most of them are wrestling with crushing and unprecedented budget shortfalls.

   This amendment makes an important downpayment, and sends a strong signal to mayors and first responders across the country. It says that the U.S. Senate knows that more needs to be done, that not enough is being done, and that we are prepared to begin helping you meet the awesome challenges you face. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for standing firm on this amendment, and for all he has done to force our government to recognize and address the extraordinary homeland security needs confronting this nation. I yield the floor.

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

[Page: S9697]

Senate will vote to waive the point of order.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the motion to waive?

   If not, the question is on agreeing to the motion. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

   The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

   Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CRAPO) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI) are necessarily absent.

   Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. EDWARDS), the Senator from Florida (Mr. GRAHAM), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KERRY), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. LEAHY), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. LIEBERMAN) are necessarily absent.

   I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KERRY) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. LEAHY) would each vote ``yea.''

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TALENT). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

   The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 291 Leg.]

YEAS--43

   Akaka

   Baucus

   Bayh

   Biden

   Bingaman

   Boxer

   Breaux

   Byrd

   Cantwell

   Carper

   Clinton

   Conrad

   Corzine

   Daschle

   Dayton

   Dodd

   Dorgan

   Durbin

   Feingold

   Feinstein

   Harkin

   Hollings

   Inouye

   Jeffords

   Johnson

   Kennedy

   Kohl

   Landrieu

   Lautenberg

   Levin

   Lincoln

   Mikulski

   Murray

   Nelson (FL)

   Nelson (NE)

   Pryor

   Reed

   Reid

   Rockefeller

   Sarbanes

   Schumer

   Stabenow

   Wyden

NAYS--50

   Alexander

   Allard

   Allen

   Bennett

   Bond

   Brownback

   Bunning

   Burns

   Campbell

   Chafee

   Chambliss

   Cochran

   Coleman

   Collins

   Cornyn

   Craig

   DeWine

   Dole

   Ensign

   Enzi

   Fitzgerald

   Frist

   Graham (SC)

   Grassley

   Gregg

   Hagel

   Hatch

   Hutchison

   Inhofe

   Kyl

   Lott

   Lugar

   McCain

   McConnell

   Miller

   Murkowski

   Nickles

   Roberts

   Santorum

   Sessions

   Shelby

   Smith

   Snowe

   Specter

   Stevens

   Sununu

   Talent

   Thomas

   Voinovich

   Warner

NOT VOTING--7

   Crapo

   Domenici

   Edwards

   Graham (FL)

   Kerry

   Leahy

   Lieberman

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 43 and the nays are 50. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is sustained. The amendment falls.

5B) Port Security and Nuclear Device Smuggling

AMENDMENT NO. 1343

   Mr. SCHUMER. I have an amendment at the desk.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

   The bill clerk read as follows:

   The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an amendment numbered 1343.

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

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase the funds for research and development related to transportation security, and for other purposes)

    On page 49, beginning on line 14, strike all through line 19 and insert the following:

    For necessary expenses for research and development related to transportation security, $200,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That of the total amount provided under this heading, $45,000,000 shall be available for the research and development of explosive detection devices: Provided further, That of the total amount provided under this heading $70,000,000 shall be available for the Secretary of Homeland Security to award grants under section 70107(i) of title 46, United States Code, to national laboratories, private nonprofit 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.

   Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will listen to this because maybe we can get this accepted without a vote. As many in the Chamber know, as does certainly the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, to me one of the greatest holes, one of the greatest weaknesses we face as we try to defend our homeland is we are not doing enough to prevent the smuggling of a nuclear weapon into this country. Our greatest nightmare would be that some evil group of people get ahold of a nuclear weapon and put it in a container in a ship and send it to our shores. The devastation that would ensue would be enormous. Unfortunately, there is very little to prevent that from happening now.

   We are trying to tighten our general cargo system, but it is not enough in terms of preventing a nuclear weapon from coming into this country.

   I sought experts shortly after 9/11 and said, How do we prevent this from happening? They said, There is good news and bad news. The good news is nuclear devices are detectable because they emit something called gamma rays, which pass through everything. The bad news is the only practical detection devices right now are Geiger counters and the Geiger counter has to be held 2 or 3 feet from the object.

   You can't go on every container and put a Geiger counter near each crate. It will bring commerce to a standstill. But, they said, the cyclotrons at Brookhaven National Lab and Argonne, our national energy labs, detect radiation 60, 70, 80 feet away. The trouble is, the devices are not practical. They are delicate, they cannot be bounced around, and they are large. But, they said, it should not be too difficult to practicalize these devices and then place them on every crane that loads or unloads a container. It would emit a noise if, God forbid, a nuclear weapon were on board that container, and we could stop it.

   Everyone agrees this is a good thing to do. The problem is finding the resources to get it done. So last year the Senate voted for $150 million to do this.

[Page: S9764]

But when we got back from the conference, I think $10 million was left in, which was not close to enough.

   I have proposed in this amendment that we add another $70 million to general homeland security research, solely for the purpose of developing these nuclear detection devices. But if my good friend from Mississippi thinks we do not want to add any money into the bill, I would be satisfied with earmarking $70 million of the existing research funds for this very purpose. Although it would take money away from other research, it would not increase the overall amount.

   I cannot imagine research that is more needed. As I mentioned, I would be happy to substitute the second amendment which does not raise the overall price and earmarks the money.

   All I can say is. God forbid a nuclear device is smuggled into this country; it would be our worst nightmare. The fact we can do something about it and the fact we are not doing enough about it to me is a dereliction of our duty, of our responsibility to make our citizens safe. I want to be able to say to my constituents--I think every Member here does--that every container entering this country has no nuclear weapon in it. By developing technologies like passive detectors, we can make sure that happens. There is not a question as to whether this is feasible. It is not just spending the money and putting it

   down a black hole. The $10 million that was allocated last year, even though this House voted for $150 million, is too little. The $70 million--I would rather have it be higher, but the bottom line is this. Terrorists know our weaknesses. Right now, let's hope none of them has a nuclear weapon. But, if, God forbid, they did--if, God forbid, they did, they could bring it into this country through one of our ports and have a darn good chance, an all-too-high chance of succeeding.

   So I say to my colleagues, there may be no amendment to this bill more important than this one to the future safety of our citizens, our beautiful and wonderful 280 million Americans; maybe no amendment that we vote on this year. This is a quiet issue. It has not garnered that much attention. But it is a vital issue. This should show whether Government can work. Because this is what we should be doing.

   I hope my friend from Mississippi will accept this amendment. I would rather not call a vote on it. As I said, I would be willing to substitute for this the offset. But we cannot delay any further. Every year we delay makes it more likely that this horrible situation could occur.

   I do not want to be in a ``what if'' mode. What if, God forbid--God forbid--a nuclear weapon were exploded in this country? And what if the next morning we said to ourselves: Why didn't we do something about it when we knew we could?

   With that, I will relinquish the floor and hope my colleague from Mississippi and others could work something out here so we could come to a compromise and get this amendment accepted in the legislation.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

   Mr. COCHRAN. 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.

   Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?

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

   I would be happy to yield.

   Mr. SCHUMER. I have taken the first amendment and added $70 million in general homeland security research. But it requires the research to go into port security. The language is not specific. I can make it specific. It was intended to be for the research into these devices. We can get together and make it specific. I don't know why we didn't. We probably should have. But it just earmarks it for port security as opposed to general security.

   The second amendment, which I haven't sent to the desk, doesn't increase the overall amount for research and development. But this one does. This would increase it by $70 million. It is not taken from the rest. But the other one earmarks $70 million of the existing $130 million for this very purpose.

   If the problem is making the language more specific, I am willing to do that.

   I am not familiar. I ask my colleague a question: Where does the $55 million that he is refers to go? As I understand it, there is $10 million we passed last year. But I would be happy to look at that. I have no pride of authorship. I just want to get these devices done.

   Mr. COCHRAN. 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.

   Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

   Mr. COCHRAN. I have yielded the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

   Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I first make a point. Yes, there is $55 million for this, but none of that has to be used for nuclear security devices. There is no allocation for any research to be done for this very important part of research.

   I have to say, with all due respect, that there are lots of different kinds of research which will be done that don't guarantee any. Last year, we put $10 million in for this, but the Senate voted for $150 million.

   But I ask my colleague a question: First, where is this institute? I am not even familiar with it.

[Page: S9765]

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

   Mr. SCHUMER. Second, I ask my colleague if we were not to violate the Budget Act but, say, allocate $70 million or some sum within the $130 million for research that should specifically go for nuclear detection devices, would my friend from Mississippi be willing to support something like that?

   Mr. COCHRAN. 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. SCHUMER. There is $10 million we allocated last year for this. The Senate voted for $150 million. There was no subcommittee at that point on homeland security. Senator Stevens supported it. But when it came back from conference, it only had $10 million in it.

   I think my colleague would understand that this kind of research should not be done in some new institute. There are experts who have done this already at our national energy research laboratories. They can detect radiation. It is just that the device has to be practical, and it is not right now. That is why we need this specific quick allocation.

   But if my colleague from Mississippi doesn't want to allocate any specific money for this purpose, whether we violate the Budget Act or not, I guess there is no compromise we can reach.

   I would be happy to yield to my colleague.

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

   Is that what the Senator wants to establish--that it is

   port specific and maritime specific and that we ought to get on with it to protect our ports?

   Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for that point.

   I say to my friend from Mississippi that it is probably likely that none of the $55 million of this specific institute, which I am sure is doing a very good job on air research, will do this. Then I say to my colleague--I say to everybody here--to not put any money into this when this is the greatest danger we face is a dereliction of our responsibility. I am willing to offset. I am willing to work. But the $55 million that is in this institute is not going to go to the kind of research we are talking about. Even if they were to give the money to this institute to do it, it would have to reinvent the wheel when our existing research laboratories can do this.

   Last year, we had sort of a consensus that we had to do something, but in conference we lost the dollars. We are taking a step backward here. This is what everyone worried about after 9/11--that we would become complacent. From all of the moneys in the budget, we can't find $70 million to do research to deal with perhaps the greatest danger that faces us. That is wrong. That is something we, hopefully, will never regret. But we may.

   I say to my colleague from Mississippi that this Atlantic City research center, as my friend Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey said, is part of the FAA. That has nothing to do with the research we are talking about. It does a good job.

   I ask my colleague, where is this research going to be done?

   I say to all of my colleagues, if we don't do this amendment, and we say it is because of the Budget Act, my goodness, we just passed $350 billion in tax cuts without even talking about the Budget Act. And we can't spend $70 million to make our homeland secure from the greatest danger that would face us--greater than biological weapons, greater than chemical weapons? What is the matter with us?

   Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for another question?

   Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield.

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

   Mr. SCHUMER. Right.

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

   Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for the question. Obviously, this is a real problem. Obviously, we should be doing something about it. And somehow, because the committee, in its wisdom, said $55 million for this and $40 million for this and $10 million for this, and we can't break the Budget Act, we should ignore this problem. Why the heck do we have amendments on the floor? No one objects to the substance, it is just finding room for it.

   I would just, once again, say to my colleagues, I plead with you; this is not a political issue for me at all; this is about the safety of America. Let us find some way to find some money.

   I am not saying the committee should be omniscient and should have thought of everything. This is one area on which I have spent a lot of time. I can assure every one of my colleagues that the money could be well spent. Every expert says it can be done. And every expert who looks at our budget says it is not being done now or is being done at such a slow pace that we are almost inviting people to harm us.

   So I am disappointed--I have to tell you, I am disappointed, whether we violate the Budget Act or not, because I am willing to go either way--that we cannot find one thin dime more for this vital research.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

   Mr. COCHRAN. 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 R&D.

   Also, there are other accounts, such as detection systems product improvement, demonstrations, remediation and consequence management--a wide range of other activities. The total for radiological and nuclear countermeasures for this year alone, in the bill we have presented, is $131 million. In 2003, the total was $75 million. So we have almost doubled the amount for the science and technology research that is being done in this particular area. So this isn't the only account that is available.

   Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield?

   Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield.

   Mr. SCHUMER. I am not aware, in all the research my friend from Mississippi read off, that any is being done

[Page: S9766]

for the specific thing I talked about, which is to develop not just a nuclear sensor somewhere but nuclear sensors that can go on cranes when they load and unload containers.

   Every expert who looks at how they would do a nuclear device here, how they would explode one going into this country--it is very hard to do it on a plane; they are heavy; they can't do it on a truck very easily--you do it in the big containers that come through the ports.

   I don't see anything, from what the Senator has read off, to show this is being done. I would be happy to delay for a bit. We could do some research and call Homeland Security and see if they are doing this. Just to read off a number of accounts and say there is research being done, and maybe some of it is being done in the area I am talking about--which I know everyone thinks is important--isn't good enough because this is so important.

   So I ask the Senator, does he know of any specific funds that will definitely--not maybe but definitely--go to the research we are talking about; namely, nuclear detection devices to prevent nuclear weapons from being smuggled in, in a container?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

   Mr. COCHRAN. 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.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

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

   Mr. COCHRAN. 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.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the amendment?

   At the moment there is not a sufficient second on the amendment.

   The Senator from New York.

   Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move that the Budget Act be waived and ask for the yeas and nays.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the motion?

   There appears to be a sufficient second.

   Is there further debate on the motion to waive?

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

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. COCHRAN. 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.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered

********************

VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1343

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act in relation to the Schumer amendment No. 1343. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

   The bill clerk called the roll.

   Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CRAPO) is necessarily absent.

   Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. EDWARDS), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KERRY), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. LIEBERMAN) are necessarily absent.

   I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KERRY) would vote ``yea.''

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. COLLINS). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

   The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 295 Leg.]

YEAS--45

   Akaka

   Baucus

   Bayh

   Biden

   Bingaman

   Boxer

   Breaux

   Byrd

   Cantwell

   Carper

   Clinton

   Conrad

   Corzine

   Daschle

   Dayton

   Dodd

   Dorgan

   Durbin

   Feingold

   Feinstein

   Graham (FL)

   Harkin

   Hollings

   Inouye

   Jeffords

   Johnson

   Kennedy

   Kohl

   Landrieu

   Lautenberg

   Leahy

   Levin

   Lincoln

   Mikulski

   Murray

   Nelson (FL)

   Nelson (NE)

   Pryor

   Reed

   Reid

   Rockefeller

   Sarbanes

   Schumer

   Stabenow

   Wyden

NAYS--51

   Alexander

   Allard

   Allen

   Bennett

   Bond

   Brownback

   Bunning

   Burns

   Campbell

   Chafee

   Chambliss

   Cochran

   Coleman

   Collins

   Cornyn

   Craig

   DeWine

   Dole

   Domenici

   Ensign

   Enzi

   Fitzgerald

   Frist

   Graham (SC)

   Grassley

   Gregg

   Hagel

   Hatch

   Hutchison

   Inhofe

   Kyl

   Lott

   Lugar

   McCain

   McConnell

   Miller

   Murkowski

   Nickles

   Roberts

   Santorum

   Sessions

   Shelby

   Smith

   Snowe

   Specter

   Stevens

   Sununu

   Talent

   Thomas

   Voinovich

   Warner

NOT VOTING--4

   Crapo

   Edwards

   Kerry

   Lieberman

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 45, the nays are 51. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is sustained. The amendment falls.

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

   Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.

   The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

5C) Chemical Facility Security

AMENDMENT NO. 1350

   Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Edwards, Senator Lautenberg, and others, and ask for its immediate consideration.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

   The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

   The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. CORZINE], for himself, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 1350.

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

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To appropriate $80,000,000 for the Office of the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection to conduct chemical facility security assessments)

    On page 66, strike lines 9 and 10, and insert the following:

   $903,700,000, to remain available until September 30, 2005; of which $80,000,000 shall be for chemical facility security assessments.

   Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this amendment addresses one of the most serious security threats facing the American people. As I will indicate later, this is not an assertion I make alone but an assertion made by a broad range of security experts, including the Secretary of Homeland Security: the threat of a terrorist attack on our Nation's chemical facilities.

   There are literally thousands of chemical producers, refineries, and similar facilities throughout the United States where the release of chemicals can kill or injure literally tens of thousands and, in many instances, millions of Americans through exposure to highly toxic gases. That is why these facilities are potentially so attractive to terrorists. That is why security officials indicate that point.

   From a practical viewpoint, often these facilities are located in the most densely populated communities across our Nation. The legacies of the great era of American manufacturing were practiced in our urban communities and continue to be in many instances today. New Jersey happens to be one of those communities that is densely populated--it is the most densely populated State in the Nation, and many of these facilities with exposures to over 1 million people are located in my State.

   Unfortunately, there are currently no Federal security standards for chemical facilities, none. So the private sector has been left to do as it sees appropriate on a completely voluntary basis. There are some very positive actions by some in the industry to make sure that security and safety at

[Page: S9779]

the plants is attended to. There are good standards being promoted by trade associations. But far too many of the facilities across this country have not stepped up to meet their responsibilities. Far too many continue to be vulnerable to attack.

   Time after time we have seen press reports and other indications that our chemical facilities are not properly secure, and there has been very little effort to improve the safety of the processing in many plants. Put literally, millions of Americans are at risk.

   A recent report by the conference board, by the way, that confirms this shows there has been a very limited increase in expenditures at publicly held companies in this country. Less than 4 percent at the median, and very little, according to many of the anecdotal pieces of information we have been able to find with regard to chemical plants.

   According to the EPA, there are 123 facilities in 24 States where a chemical release could expose more than 1 million people to highly toxic chemicals. There are about 750 facilities in 39 States where a chemical release could expose more than 100,000 people to these chemicals. Thirty-nine States have that kind of exposure.

   I have with me a map that shows how many of these facilities are located in each State. This really is a broad-based national issue. There are nearly 3,000 facilities spread across 49 States where a chemical release could expose more than 10,000 people. These are staggering numbers representing a broad vulnerability across America.

   The consequences of an attack on a chemical plant are potentially horrific, and it is hard for any of us to even imagine. Think back to 1983 in Bhopal, India, where over 3,000 people died and innumerable injuries and problems in health still linger today. I would argue that our Nation appears to be in denial about this problem. If anything, September 11 taught us that we cannot avoid thinking about the unthinkable. We have to face up to the Nation's most serious vulnerabilities. We have to focus on them and confront them head on. If we look at what has been identified by security experts and the people at the Department of Homeland Security, we will draw that conclusion.

   I repeat one of the statistics I mentioned: There are 123 chemical facilities around our Nation that could threaten more than 1 million American lives in their immediate vicinity. To bring this home, there are eight of these facilities in my home State of New Jersey, one that has the potential to expose over 8 million people in the Greater New Jersey-New York region with a toxic cloud. Think about that, 8 million people located smack dab in the middle of one of the most densely populated areas in our country.

   These facilities pose a severe threat to public safety. They have serious weapons that could be used against the American people and cause massive injuries and death. Loaded with chemicals such as chlorine, ammonia, and hydrogen fluoride, chemicals that serve an important industrial function, they could be instantly transformed into a weapon of mass destruction at the hands of a terrorist.

   I am not arguing that many are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. I see great activity about security and safety in many of the pharmaceutical plants in New Jersey.

   There are many who are not stepping up to the plate to make sure the public is protected, and this is not just my opinion. Again, it has been documented by experts in the administration and the like. On March 18, the General Accounting Office issued a new report on this matter. GAO found that chemical facilities may be attractive targets for terrorists because of the extent of harm they could inflict.

   If one is trying to find a way to seriously impact broad numbers of the population, this is how GAO says terrorists might actually accomplish that. GAO goes on to say: There are no Federal laws requiring chemical facilities to assess vulnerabilities, to take action, to safeguard against these attacks. GAO recommended that the Department of Homeland Security and the EPA jointly develop a strategy, including legislative proposal, to address the threats of attacks on chemical facilities.

   The GAO report was released on March 18 of this year, but only one month earlier the Department of Homeland Security itself sounded the alarm about the threat facing chemical facilities. In the bulletin issued on February 12 of this year, when we moved to code orange, the Department stated:

   Al-Qaida operatives also may attempt to launch conventional attacks against U.S. nuclear/chemical-industrial infrastructure to cause contamination, disruption and terror.

   In our releases to our own people across this country, we identify this as a vulnerability. We ask our local law enforcement to protect the American people.

   Based on information, nuclear power plants and industrial chemical plants remain viable targets.

   Now I go back to October 6 of last year. On that day, Homeland Security Secretary Ridge and EPA Administrator Whitman had a letter of theirs published in the Washington Post. In that letter they stated:

   The Bush administration is committed to reducing the vulnerability of America's chemical facilities to terrorist attack and is working to enact bipartisan legislation that would require such facilities to address their vulnerabilities.

   That was on October 6 last year. I think this is July 23.

   The letter goes on to state:

   We applaud the voluntary efforts some in the industry have undertaken--

   By the way, I do as well--

   but we believe that every one of the 15,000 chemical facilities nationwide that contain large quantities of hazardous chemicals must be required to take the steps the industry leaders are taking at their facilities: performing comprehensive vulnerability assessments and then acting to reduce those vulnerabilities.

   Yet in spite of all of these public acknowledgments, comments and statements, we still have not been able to enact chemical security legislation. I introduced a bill back in October of 2001, and did a lot of compromising with a lot of folks on the EPW committee, addressing industry concerns. We reported out a bill 19 to 0. I reintroduced that legislation in this Congress. In April, I offered the bill with further modifications as an amendment to the Defense supplemental appropriations bill. The amendment was defeated on a point of order. In that bill, I actually included additional funds to help facilitate putting in security elements to make sure industry believed we were working as partners to accomplish it.

   I will not be offering that legislation on this appropriations bill. I know it would be subject to a point of order. But I simply cannot let this legislation go through without drawing attention to an issue that just lingers and lingers. For the people of the State of New Jersey, and I know in all of these other States that I just talked about, this is a serious risk as we go forward.

   In that regard, I want to commend Senator Byrd for recognizing the importance of this issue and including chemical security as a priority in his amendment yesterday. More than any other Senator, the senior Senator from West Virginia has consistently demanded that we do more on homeland security than talk about it. So I thank him for his leadership on homeland security in general, and more specifically for his attention to chemical plant security.

   The amendment Senator Edwards and I are offering today is the chemical security portion of Senator Byrd's amendment. It appropriates $80 million for the Department to conduct vulnerability assessments at chemical facilities--simple, with none of the other stuff that is such an onerous problem for the industry. Just get an assessment of what the risks are.

   We would not tolerate this with our nuclear plants in this country. We check them out all the time. We have a whole infrastructure to do it. We have these plants located--again, 123 right in the middle of our most vulnerable areas, our most densely populated areas. This $80 million is the amount the Congressional Budget Office has estimated it will cost to conduct vulnerability assessments nationwide.

   Some have questioned whether we should legislate this as a priority. They argue that we have funds in the bill that could be used for this purpose and that we should let the Department identify infrastructure priorities as they see fit. That certainly does not jibe with the language I have heard Secretary Ridge, EPA Director Whitman, the GAO, and others talk about,

[Page: S9780]

and I would respond that chemical plants have consistently been identified by every security expert and leader as a top priority. They must be addressed.

   Last week, Rand Beers, who until recently was a senior director for combating terrorism on the Bush administration National Security Council, was asked the following question:

   When we think about homeland security, what specifically concerns you?

   To which Mr. Beers replied:

   We have looked at the chemical industries around the country and have a very serious concern. There are a number of these plants in locations around the country where an explosion would create a catastrophic result which could approximate the World Trade Center. These are areas where we need the Federal Government to give the chemical industry the guidelines that are necessary in order to protect those plants, because for the plants to simply do it on their own is going to create a great disadvantage to those who do and an advantage to those who don't because it will cost money. So it ought to be evened out across the industry.

   I wish I had been as articulate as Mr. Beers. That is exactly what we need to be doing. By the way, it is unfair for those who are actually dealing with the problem relative to those who walk away from their responsibility in their communities.

   Chemical plants were the first thing on Mr. Beers' list, and we have done nothing to address this threat. I think it

   is appropriate that we deal with it and give direction to the Department in this regard. This amendment, which would fund vulnerability assessments, is a positive step. It is one that we ought to take today. I also want to make it clear it is a first step, and we need to do more.

   After we appropriate these funds, we will still have the task of passing authorizing legislation to assure appropriate security standards and accountability mechanisms are put in place, as Mr. Beers alluded to in his comments. We just have to get moving on this issue.

   Earlier in the year, Senator Inhofe introduced his own bill on chemical plant security. There is much in that bill that I find positive. It does not go far enough, in my view, but it is a good first step. It is a great place to start. We need to get moving on this issue. We have people exposed to vulnerability that almost everyone recognizes and identifies. I think we need to get moving in the Congress, and I think the administration needs to step forward also.

   Despite consistent statements in support of the concept of the legislation, it has not been pushed as a priority on the agenda. So I am calling on the President and Secretary Ridge to move on this issue. My goal is to truly develop bipartisan legislation, an effective approach that deals with the real vulnerability that we have; one that can move through this body and the House and be signed into law. For now, as a first step toward securing chemical plants, I urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment which will provide $80 million to the Department of Homeland Security to conduct vulnerability assessments at chemical plants. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

   Mr. COCHRAN. 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.

   Mr. CORZINE. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act 74, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment.

   Mr. COCHRAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

   There is a sufficient second.

   The yeas and nays were ordered.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 3 1/2 minutes remaining.

   Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, every department head, including the Director of Homeland Security, Secretary Ridge, has identified this as a priority. They have earmarked it, but we have yet to see the actual dollars flowing to meet the challenge that occurs in this area. Each day that goes by is another day of exposure to literally millions of Americans.

   Given it is identified over and over again in the rhetoric and the memoranda to first responders across the country, in times of high tension and vulnerability, it seems to me we ought to single this out in a context that makes this a vulnerability that we will address. That is what my amendment is trying to do.

   We have procrastinated long enough on an issue that is very important to the entire Nation with regard to these very serious vulnerabilities--100,000 Americans or more are at risk in 39 States. There are 123 facilities that expose more than 1 million people. That is why I make a point of bringing this up.

   I appreciate the comments. I hope, with the dialog we are having, we will encourage the Homeland Security Department to be cognizant of the need to make these vulnerability assessments.

   I yield back the floor.

********************

AMENDMENT NO. 1350

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes equally divided prior to the vote in relation to the Corzine amendment.

   Mr. COCHRAN. 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. CORZINE. Mr. President, I will reiterate the strong feeling that we need to address chemical plant security in this Nation. There has not been the attention that is due to the millions and millions of Americans who are exposed to the potential for toxic fumes from a potential terrorist attack.

   These plants are identified as one of most vulnerable elements by the Department of Homeland Security. They are cited in each of the notices to move to code orange as requiring the attention of local law enforcement and the providers of safety for communities. I think it is time for Congress to take action to assess these vulnerabilities on a complete basis. I hope we will come back and have some stricter requirements that will also deal with it. But that is the first step.

   I appreciate the help of my colleagues and urge support of the amendment.

[Page: S9783]

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act in relation to the Corzine amendment No. 1350. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

   The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

   Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CRAPO) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI) are necessarily absent.

   Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. GRAHAM), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KERRY), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. LIEBERMAN) are necessarily absent.

   I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KERRY) would vote ``yea.''

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

   The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 297 Leg.]

YEAS--43

   Akaka

   Baucus

   Bayh

   Biden

   Bingaman

   Boxer

   Byrd

   Cantwell

   Carper

   Clinton

   Conrad

   Corzine

   Daschle

   Dayton

   Dodd

   Dorgan

   Durbin

   Edwards

   Feingold

   Feinstein

   Harkin

   Hollings

   Inouye

   Jeffords

   Johnson

   Kennedy

   Kohl

   Landrieu

   Lautenberg

   Leahy

   Levin

   Lincoln

   Mikulski

   Murray

   Nelson (FL)

   Pryor

   Reed

   Reid

   Rockefeller

   Sarbanes

   Schumer

   Stabenow

   Wyden

NAYS--52

   Alexander

   Allard

   Allen

   Bennett

   Bond

   Breaux

   Brownback

   Bunning

   Burns

   Campbell

   Chafee

   Chambliss

   Cochran

   Coleman

   Collins

   Cornyn

   Craig

   DeWine

   Dole

   Ensign

   Enzi

   Fitzgerald

   Frist

   Graham (SC)

   Grassley

   Gregg

   Hagel

   Hatch

   Hutchison

   Inhofe

   Kyl

   Lott

   Lugar

   McCain

   McConnell

   Miller

   Murkowski

   Nelson (NE)

   Nickles

   Roberts

   Santorum

   Sessions

   Shelby

   Smith

   Snowe

   Specter

   Stevens

   Sununu

   Talent

   Thomas

   Voinovich

   Warner

NOT VOTING--5

   Crapo

   Domenici

   Graham (FL)

   Kerry

   Lieberman

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 43, the nays are 52. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.

   Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

   Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.

   The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

5D) Transit Security

AMENDMENT NO. 1372

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

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

   The bill clerk read as follows:

   The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. REED], for himself and Mr. Sarbanes, proposes an amendment numbered 1372.

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

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To appropriate $100,000,000 for grants to public transit agencies to enhance public transportation security against terrorist threats)

    On page 49, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

   TRANSIT SECURITY

    For necessary expenses of the Transportation Security Administration related to land transportation security services pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) and for other purposes, $100,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2004, which shall be available for grants to public transit agencies for enhancing the security of transit facilities against chemical, biological and other terrorist threats: Provided, That the Secretary of Homeland Security shall make such grants pursuant to threat assessments previously conducted by the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Transit Administration: Provided further, That the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Transportation shall enter into a memorandum of understanding regarding transit security. Provided further, That not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a report to Congress that includes--

    (1) the amount of funds appropriated to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) that have been allocated for activities designed to improve public transportation security;

    (2) the number of full-time TSA personnel engaged in activities designed to improve public transportation security;

    (3) the strategic plan of the TSA for improving the security of our Nation's public transportation systems; and

    (4) recommendations from the TSA for any policy changes needed to ensure that the TSA, in coordination with other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, will effectively improve public transportation security for our Nation's transit riders.

   Mr. REED. Mr. President, earlier this week, the Senate debated a comprehensive amendment by Senator Byrd with respect to deficiencies in this bill regarding resources for homeland security. Essentially, what Senator Byrd was trying to do was to match the resources we need with the rhetoric we have heard about protecting the homeland of the United States.

   I am disappointed Senator Byrd's amendment did not prevail. Within

[Page: S9862]

that amendment, there were resources devoted to transit security. Today, I offer an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Sarbanes to address what I think is an amazing and unacceptable lack of resources and investment for securing and protecting our Nation's trains, buses, and ferries. Indeed, these vehicles and these transportation modes provide transportation for millions of Americans each day, and they require protection.

   I want to be clear. This is not the fault of the committee, and certainly not the fault of the chairman who has done an extraordinary job in securing an additional $1 billion for the subcommittee's allocation. But the fact is that the administration has not asked for sufficient resources to protect the transit systems in the United States. Again, this is why, together with Senator Sarbanes, I am offering this amendment to add $100 million for the protection of our public transit systems.

   Each day, millions of Americans, old and young, rich and poor, every kind of American, board a bus or a train to go to work, school, or a doctor's appointment. Each year the Federal Government spends billions of dollars to build and maintain these systems. Yet to date, shockingly, the Federal Government has only invested below $90 million in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for transit security if we exclude the very special circumstances of rebuilding transit systems that were attacked and severely damaged during the September 11 attack.

   We have recognized the need to protect our airlines and we have spent billions of dollars to do so, but there is the same compelling need to protect the transit systems of the United States.

   There are two major reasons we must protect these transit systems: First, we want to avoid, preempt, and prevent, a terrorist event involving a transit system; second, we need transit systems that have interoperable communications, trained personnel, and additional equipment to mitigate the consequences of any type of terrorist event in the United States.

   It is quite clear transit systems are a target of terrorists. According to a report in 1994 by John P. Sullivan and Henry I. DeGeneste: ``Transit systems are attractive targets for a number of reasons. They carry large numbers of people within concentrated, predictable areas and timeframes. They are accessible since they provide easy user access. Finally, their target-rich infrastructure which often covers extensive geographic areas frequently renders countermeasures impractical.''

   So we know this. Indeed, the Federal Transit Administration knows it. To their credit, they have taken meager resources to provide transit assessment assistance to any transit system that is required or requested. They have been able to advise these transit systems. But advice is not dollars. Advice does not build or buy equipment that will protect commuters in our transit systems.

   We already know transit systems are a target, in many cases targets of choice. The Mineta Institute indicates that between 1997 to 2000 there were 195 terrorist attacks against transit systems worldwide. Most of these attacks were against buses. I should point out, 90 percent of these attacks occurred against buses. In the Middle East, we have seen the horrific pictures of buses blown up by suicide bombers. No one wants to see such pictures in the United States.

   Of course, the most horrific example of a terrorist attack against transit was the 1995 sarin gas attack in Japan where 11 people were killed and 5,500 innocent people were injured due to the work of a small band of crazed individuals.

   We understand there is a great potential for terror attacks against transit systems. Given the increasing danger of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, these transit attacks could be horrific in the future.

   I also mention that not only do we need to avoid attacks against transit, we need to be prepared in the case of another terrorist attack in the United States. I refer to testimony before my subcommittee last year, as I chaired the subcommittee with respect to transit's role in September 11. The first is a statement by Jenna Dorn, the Administrator on the Federal Transit Administration.

   At 8:52 a.m. on September 11th, minutes after the first hijacked jet plowed into One World Trade Center, a Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) train master gave life-saving instructions to conductors and operators.

   A train from Newark, carrying about 1,000 passengers, had just pulled into the station below the World Trade Center. The train master told the crew to keep everyone on the train, board everyone in the station, and immediately depart for the Exchange Place stop in Jersey City. Public transportation employees immediately evacuated passengers who mistakenly left the train.

   A train from Hoboken carrying another 1,000 people was just behind the Newark train. The train master told that crew to keep the doors closed at the Trade Center and head immediately to Jersey City.

   The train master then told another train in Jersey City to discharge all passengers and head back to the World Trade Center to evacuate remaining travelers and transit personnel. That train departed with its precious cargo at 9:10 a.m., 40 minutes before the first building collapsed.

   That train master, Richie Moran, and PATH's emergency response plan, saved thousands of lives. As we watched the death toll climb in New York, it is astounding to realize that no one riding the PATH or New York City subway lines that morning was injured.

   That is not an accident. That is the result of good communications, planning, training, all the issues that they showed in New York City. But let me suggest the level of planning, training, and equipment in New York City is not duplicated in many cities around this country--and it should be.

   Also, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD excerpts from the statement by Richard A. White, the general manager of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, who talks of the integral role of that system in evacuating personnel during the attack on the Pentagon.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

   On September 11, when WMATA was needed most, and in the midst of regional chaos, Metrorail and Metrobus were ready, and delivered for the National Capital Region. We operated the equivalent of back-to-back rush hours virtually without incident, after the Federal Government and other regional employers sent hundreds of thousands of workers home around mid-morning. We were operating the entire day. We did what we do best. We moved large numbers of people safely and efficiently.

   Throughout the day, the WMATA workforce performed extraordinarily. Not once did an employee put their own individual concerns ahead of their sense of duty to the customers. The transit police, the bus and rail operators, the station personnel, the customer service representatives--everyone--demonstrated their dedication to our mission of moving people safely and securely.

   Further, we never lost communications throughout the day. We established and maintained contact with local State, and Federal authorities, and we communicated with our riders through in-system messages, our phone system and over the internet through the website.

   WMATA, blessedly, suffered no property damage, no loss of life, and no injury to any of its employees nor to any of our customers on that terrible day.

   Mr. REED. Senator Sarbanes and I asked for a GAO report on transit security. The GAO visited 10 transit properties all over the country of varying sizes and characteristics. They surveyed 200 of the 6,000 transit operators of the Nation. Their report clearly indicates the compelling need for Federal assistance.

   In addition to that, it clearly indicates the scope of that system. Of just eight of the transit systems that had conducted professional security assessments and asked professionals to come in and review procedures, equipment, personnel, the cost to upgrade these systems, for just 8 out of 6,000, was $700 million. If we were to upgrade all of our transit systems in this country, it would be on the order of billions of dollars. Yet, those costs have not been met by the administration for this compelling need.

   The administration has barely funded transit security, about $88 million. Some of this, frankly, was discretionary funding from the Department of Homeland Security which they, to their credit, decided to commit to the issue of transit security.

   We have to provide the resources. In addition, we have to also ensure that there is appropriate responsibility and oversight. That is why our amendment also calls on the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation to sign a memorandum of agreement to ensure that the two

[Page: S9863]

agencies, as well as the Federal Transit Administration and the Transportation Security Administration, have in place strong linkages, coordination, and understanding of their mutual and separate roles. We have been repeatedly assured that this agreement was imminent. It has yet to be produced, yet to be issued. Our amendment asks that this be done expeditiously. My colleague, Senator Sarbanes, will address these points also.

   Our position today is not to cause panic but to prevent panic by having the resources so that our transit systems are not targets of terrorists and that our transit systems can, in fact, provide value to the support in the wake of any type of attack on a major urban area in the United States by terrorists. This is a well-crafted amendment. Certainly the need is there. I urge support of the amendment.

   I recognize at some point the chairman may raise a budget point of order against my amendment, and at the appropriate time either I or Senator Reid of Nevada will move to waive the point of order. I urge my colleagues to support my motion to waive.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

   Mr. SARBANES. What is the parliamentary situation?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 19 minutes allocated to the Senator from Rhode Island.

   Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator from Rhode Island yield me 8 minutes?

   Mr. REED. I am happy to yield 8 minutes.

   Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am very pleased to cosponsor the amendment offered by my able and distinguished colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed. I commend him for his very strong leadership on the important issue of enhancing the security of our Nation's public transit systems. By allocating $100 million for transit security, this amendment would enhance the safety of millions of Americans.

   Every workday, 14 million Americans ride buses, subways, light rail, and ferries in cities and towns all across America. Transit systems throughout our Nation link people to jobs, to medical care, to shopping, to school, and to other essential services.

   More and more, Americans are recognizing the benefits that transit has to offer. Over the last 6 years, transit ridership has grown faster than any other mode of transportation.

   These riders expect and deserve transit systems that are reliable, that are safe, and that are secure.

   As chairman of the Banking Committee's Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, Senator Reed, during the last Congress, convened six hearings to examine our Nation's public transit systems, with two of those hearings fully devoted to the security question. One hearing took place just a few weeks after the attacks on September 11, and the second shortly after the first anniversary of those attacks.

   The witnesses at those hearings included the Federal Transit Administrator, representatives of transit agencies, including Richard White, the general manager of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and representatives of transit labor.

   I commend the record of those hearings to all of my colleagues. They were extremely well done.

   The witnesses testified about the contribution transit made to the Nation on September 11, something my colleague already made reference to. That morning, transit agencies across the country ran extra trains and buses as long as needed to move people safely out of city centers.

   Transit played a particularly vital role in New York and Washington, the two cities directly under attack that day. Without the vibrant transit systems in place in those cities, timely movement of our people would have been impossible.

   As more and more Americans are using public transportation, it is clear that transit must be a vital component of any city's emergency response plan.

   As my colleague indicated, according to the Mineta Transportation Institute in San Jose, CA, surface transportation was the target of more than 195 terrorist attacks from 1997 to 2000, and transit systems are the mode most commonly attacked.

   The witnesses before Senator Reed's subcommittee explained that public transportation faces unique security challenges.

   By its nature, transit must be easily accessible. It runs on identified routes and at published times, and it uses an extensive network of roads and rails spanning a wide geographic area.

   It obviously is not feasible to screen all passengers and baggage before boarding, as is done in airports, or to check the identity of all who wish to use the system.

   But, according to the witnesses who appeared before Senator Reed at those hearings, there are measures that transit agencies can take to improve their security, such as conducting vulnerability assessments, developing

   emergency plans, investing in security equipment, and training employees--which was repeatedly emphasized to us as something that would improve the security of our systems.

   But these improvements do not come without cost, and the lack of available funding was identified as a major impediment to making transit systems more secure.

   Early last year, Senator Reed and I joined in asking the General Accounting Office to review transit agencies' response to the threat of terrorism, and to identify the challenges they face in enhancing the security of their systems.

   The GAO report, released last December--and I commend this report to my colleagues--found that transit agencies have taken a number of steps, particularly since September 11, to improve security.

   At the same time, the report identified significant remaining security needs. Consistent with the testimony of our witnesses, the report found that insufficient funding--insufficient funding--is ``the most significant challenge in making transit systems as safe and secure as possible.''

   In fact, at the 10 transit agencies they visited, the GAO found hundreds of millions of dollars in identified security needs.

   Our Nation's transit agencies have made good use of the limited resources they have had available, but this report demonstrates that new resources will be needed in the future to safeguard the security of our Nation's transit systems.

   The pending legislation does not demonstrate the commitment necessary to help transit systems become more secure.

   I believe we owe it to our Nation's transit riders to do more.

   This amendment takes a critical step in the right direction by making $100 million available for transit security, to be allocated by the Department of Homeland Security according to threat assessments that have already been conducted by the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Transit Administration.

   Assessments have been conducted. The priorities are there. We can move these funds quickly out into the field in order to enhance security.

   Transit agencies could quickly put this money to use, investing in security equipment, conducting training exercises for transit personnel, and otherwise enhancing their systems' ability to resist attack.

   This is an investment that we cannot afford not to make--an investment we cannot afford not to make.

   I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the able and distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

   Mr. COCHRAN. 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

[Page: S9864]

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.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is not timely at this time. Time remains for the sponsor.

   Mr. COCHRAN. 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.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to waive would be debatable. Under precedent, the point of order should not be made until all time has expired.

   Mr. COCHRAN. I withdraw my point of order.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

   Mr. REED. Mr. President, the purpose of our amendment is not necessarily to impede any deployment of technology. It simply recognizes that even if this technology is deployed, tested, or evaluated in 6 stations or 100 stations, the cost of implementing this system and other systems--the amendment talks about protecting transportation facilities, not just subway lines, but buses and interurban transportation, all types and modes of transportation--even if you could deploy, the cost would be significant.

   Our amendment asks that this budget recognize those significant costs.

   Again, there is no question that the chairman has tried his best to come up with the resources to try to meet this need. But the need is so staggering--billions and billions of dollars. The funds in this bill devoted to transit security is so meager that our amendment simply tries to strike a balance. The $100 million would go to help systems buy equipment and train personnel. All of that is necessary.

   We also would ask that the Department of Homeland Security issue the plans they have long said they were going to do between the proper transportation and the proper homeland security to coordinate their activities with respect to transit security.

   I urge the amendment be adopted.

   I further point out that even if we were to adopt this amendment--I understand at the appropriate moment the Senator from Mississippi will make a budget point of order--this is truly a very modest downpayment on the cost of ensuring that all of our transit systems, our buses, and our subway systems have the same degree of preparedness as we are trying to develop for our airlines and for other modes of transportation.

   If we reject this amendment, we will simply be in a situation where we might be able to demonstrate a few projects, and we might be able to test the system, but we will never deploy those systems across the Nation in transit systems. There are 6,000 transit systems.

   Again, it is $100 million, just a meager downpayment for what is really a multibillion-dollar requirement for the United States.

   I recognize that the Senator has said he is proposing to make a point of order.

   At this point, I yield my time in anticipation of such a point of order.

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

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.

   Mr. COCHRAN. 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. REED. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

   There is a sufficient second.

   The yeas and nays were ordered.

********************

AMENDMENT NO. 1372

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island.

   Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes equally divided.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton be added as a cosponsor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. REED. Mr. President, there are 6,000 transit systems throughout the United States in every State in the Union. All of them need additional resources to improve their security. We know they are targets. Worldwide, there already have been 195 attacks against transit systems from buses in Israel to a sarin gas attack against the subway system of Tokyo which killed 11 and injured over 5,000 individuals.

   To fully protect all of these systems, the GAO has estimated we would need billions of dollars. The Reed-Sarbanes-Clinton amendment is a modest first step to authorize the appropriation of $100 million for grants to transit systems for equipment, training, and other security needs. The need is clear. The threat is obvious.

   I urge support for this amendment and retain the remainder of my time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.

   Mr. COCHRAN. 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.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act. The yeas and nays have been ordered.

   The clerk will call the roll.

   The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

   Mr. MCCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. BENNETT) is necessarily absent.

   Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KERRY), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. LIEBERMAN), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. MILLER) are necessarily absent.

   I also announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. DAYTON) is absent attending a funeral.

   I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. DAYTON) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KERRY) would each vote ``yea''.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

   The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 44, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 304 Leg.]

YEAS--44

   Akaka

   Baucus

   Bayh

   Biden

   Bingaman

   Boxer

   Breaux

   Byrd

   Cantwell

   Carper

   Clinton

   Conrad

   Corzine

   Daschle

   Dodd

   Dorgan

   Durbin

   Feingold

   Feinstein

   Graham (FL)

   Harkin

   Hollings

   Inouye

   Jeffords

   Johnson

   Kennedy

   Kohl

   Landrieu

   Lautenberg

   Leahy

   Levin

   Lincoln

   Mikulski

   Murray

   Nelson (FL)

   Nelson (NE)

   Pryor

   Reed

   Reid

   Rockefeller

   Sarbanes

   Schumer

   Stabenow

   Wyden

NAYS--50

   Alexander

   Allard

   Allen

   Bond

   Brownback

   Bunning

   Burns

   Campbell

   Chafee

   Chambliss

   Cochran

   Coleman

   Collins

   Cornyn

   Craig

   Crapo

   DeWine

   Dole

   Domenici

   Ensign

   Enzi

   Fitzgerald

   Frist

   Graham (SC)

   Grassley

   Gregg

   Hagel

   Hatch

   Hutchison

   Inhofe

   Kyl

   Lott

   Lugar

   McCain

   McConnell

   Murkowski

   Nickles

   Roberts

   Santorum

   Sessions

   Shelby

   Smith

   Snowe

   Specter

   Stevens

   Sununu

   Talent

   Thomas

   Voinovich

   Warner

NOT VOTING--6

   Bennett

   Dayton

   Edwards

   Kerry

   Lieberman

   Miller

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are 50. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.

5E) Port Anti-Terrorism and Security Act of 2003

AMENDMENT NO. 1365

   (Purpose: To prevent and respond to terrorism and crime at or through ports)

   Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Kyl.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is set aside.

   The clerk will report.

   The bill clerk read as follows:

   The Senator from California [Mrs. FEINSTEIN], for herself and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 1365.

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

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   The amendment is printed in today's RECORD under ``Text of Amendments.'')

   Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment aimed at preventing and punishing a terrorist act at one or another of our Nation's 361 seaports. This amendment is a stripped-down version of S. 746, the legislation I introduced with Senators KYL, CHAMBLISS, and SCHUMER.

   The provisions of this amendment have a de minimis cost.

   The Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee of Judiciary, both under Senator Kyl's leadership and also under my leadership, held some of the initial hearings on port security. Of course, we found very early on what others have found; that is, our ports are really not equipped to, A, handle the challenge of terrorism, and, B, to do so in a way to protect the American people.

   This legislation builds on amendments made to our laws in the past year but goes further than those changes to ensure the security of our seaports.

   We have found that many of our criminal laws have major loopholes in them and really do not take into consideration crimes that take place aboard ships.

   I have shown this amendment to the staff of Senator Hollings. We have shown it to Senator McCain. Yesterday, I went through it with Senators GRASSLEY and BAUCUS of the Finance Committee, and none of them indicated any objection or problem.

   Specifically, this amendment would make it a crime for terrorists to attack a port, or a cruise ship, or to deploy a weapon of mass destruction at or through a seaport.

   It would make it a crime to put devices in U.S. waters that can destroy a ship, or cargo, or interfere with safe navigation or maritime commerce.

   It would update our Federal criminal piracy and privateering laws and increase penalties.

   It would make it a crime to use a dangerous weapon or explosive to try to kill someone on board a passenger vessel.

   It would make it a crime to fail to heave to--that is, to slow or stop a vessel--at the direction of a Coast Guard or other authorized Federal law enforcement official seeking to board that vessel, or to interfere with boarding by such an officer.

   It would make it a crime to destroy an aid to maritime navigation, such as a buoy or a shoal breakwater light maintained by the Coast Guard if this would endanger the safe navigation of the vessel.

   It would make it a crime for a terrorist or a criminal to try to attack U.S. citizens or U.S. marine life by putting poison in the waters offshore.

   It would require the Attorney General to issue regulations making it easier to determine the extent of crime and terrorism at a seaport, and improve communication between different law enforcement agencies involved at ports.

   In addition, this amendment would help improve physical security at seaports by ensuring greater coordination.

   In particular, and most importantly, it would designate the captain of the port as the primary authority for seaport security at each port. This would enable all parties involved in business at a port to understand who has final say on all security matters.

   The amendment would help ensure that we devote our limited cargo inspection resources in the most efficient and effective manner. For example, it would impose deep monetary sanctions for failure to comply with information filing requirements, including filing incorrect information. The current penalty is only a few thousand dollars.

   The Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports found that about half of the information on ship manifests is inaccurate. Let me repeat that--half of the information on ship manifests is inaccurate. This means that many manifests are sloppily done. We cannot afford that.

   Finally, the amendment would require Customs to come up with a plan to expand its container security initiative and make better use of its scarce inspection resources. This would help push U.S. authority beyond our Nation's borders and improve our ability to monitor and inspect cargo and containers before they arrive near American shores.

   If a weapon of mass destruction arrives at a U.S. seaport, it is too late.

   Let me provide a couple of examples of why we need to pass this legislation, and do it fast. Our whole bill is in the Commerce Committee, and Senator McCain has agreed--I think in September--to schedule a hearing on the remainder of the bill.

   But, for purposes of this amendment, what we have done is strip out those sections of our larger bill where we believe, first of all, there is not much cost and, second of all, where we believe that it is important to get started.

   Today, if a person blows up an airplane, he commits a crime. However, if he blows up an oil tanker, he does not commit a crime--unless he is doing it to injure someone with a commercial interest in the vessel.

   In addition, if a person distributes explosives to a non-U.S. national, he commits a crime. But if the same person sows mines in the San Francisco Harbor, he does not commit a crime.

   The amendment we offer today will close these loopholes, ensuring that our criminal laws are updated to deal with the current terrorist threat.

   Currently, our seaports are the gaping hole in our Nation's defense against terrorism. According to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 13 million containers--those are 20-foot equivalent units--came into U.S. ports in 2002. However, the Government inspected only about 2 or 3 percent of these containers. The rest were simply waived through. In addition, in almost every case, these inspections occurred after the containers arrived in the United States.

[Page: S9848]

   The problem is a single container could contain 60,000 pounds of explosives. That is 10 to 15 times the amount in the Ryder truck used to blow up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. And a single container ship can carry as many as 8,000 containers at one time.

   So containers can and will be easily exploited to detonate a bomb that could destroy a bridge, a seaport, or other critical infrastructure, causing mass destruction and killing thousands.

   Worse, a suitcase-sized nuclear device or radiological ``dirty bomb'' could also be installed in a container and shipped to the United States. The odds are that the container would never be inspected. And even if the container was inspected, it would be too late. The weapon would already be in the United States, most likely near a major population center.

   In addition, any attack on or through a seaport could have devastating economic consequences. Excluding trade with Mexico and Canada, America's ports handle 95 percent of U.S. trade. Every year, our ports handle over 800 million tons of cargo valued at approximately $600 billion.

   In its December 2002 report, the Hart-Rudman Terrorism Tack Force said something interesting:

   If an explosive device were loaded in a container and set off in a port, it would almost automatically raise concern about the integrity of the 21,000 containers that arrive in U.S. ports each day and the many thousands more that arrive by truck and rail across U.S. land borders. A three-to-four-week closure of U.S. ports would bring the global container industry to its knees. Megaports such as Rotterdam and Singapore would have to close. ..... Trucks, trains, and barges would be stranded outside the terminals with no way to unload their boxes. Boxes bound for the United States would have to be unloaded from their outbound ships. Service contracts would need to be renegotiated. As the system became gridlocked, so would much of global commerce.

   We have worked on this bill with a large number of port people over a substantial period of time. This has not been quickly put together. I thank the Justice Department, the Coast Guard, Customs, the Transportation Security Administration, and leaders of ports in my home State for their assistance with this legislation.

   I also thank the working group that helped put our full bill together. This group includes Dick Steinke, executive director of the Port of Long Beach; Rob Quartel, CEO of Freightdesk Technologies; Charles Upchurch, president and CEO of SGS Global Trade Solutions; Jason Clawson, president of JBC International; Stephen Flynn, Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations; Michael Nacht, dean of the Goldman School of Public Policy; Kim Peterson, Executive Director of the Maritime Security Council; and Amanda deBusk, a member of the Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports and former Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, the Department of Commerce.

   Mr. President, this has been vetted. We have passed it through all of the applicable Federal agencies. We must close these loopholes. We must tighten these criminal penalties. We must make one person in charge of security at every port so every agency isn't stumbling over the next agency there.

   Senator Kyl has indicated that I speak for him as well. So I hope, the managers of the bill on the floor will be able to accept this amendment or, at the very least, allow us to vote for it and add it to the bill.

   Again, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I know he was ahead of me in line but he very graciously allowed me to proceed first.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

   Mr. COCHRAN. 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.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. A point of order has been made.

   The point of order is not debatable. The amendment does constitute legislation on an appropriations bill. The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.

********************

SA 1365. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. KYL) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 2555, making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes; as follows:

    At the end of the bill, add the following:

TITLE __--PORT ANTI-TERRORISM AND SECURITY ACT OF 2003

   SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.

    This title may be cited as the ``Port Anti-Terrorism and Security Act of 2003''.

Subtitle A--Deterring and Punishing Terrorism and Crime at United States Ports

   SEC. 1101. DESTRUCTION OR INTERFERENCE WITH VESSELS OR MARITIME FACILITIES.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 65 the following:

``CHAPTER 66--MARITIME VESSELS

   ``Sec.

   ``1371. Jurisdiction and scope.

   ``1372. Destruction of vessel or maritime facility.

   ``1373. Imparting or conveying false information.``§1371 Jurisdiction and scope

    ``(a) IN GENERAL.--There is jurisdiction under section 3231 over an offense under this chapter if--

    ``(1) the prohibited activity takes place within the United States, or in waters or submerged lands thereunder subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; or

    ``(2) the prohibited activity takes place outside the United States, and--

    ``(A) an offender or a victim of the prohibited activity is a citizen of the United States;

    ``(B) a citizen of the United States was on board a vessel to which this chapter applies; or

    ``(C) the prohibited activity involves a vessel of the United States.

    ``(b) APPLICABILITY.--Nothing in this chapter shall apply to otherwise lawful activities carried out by, or at the direction of, the United States Government.``§1372. Destruction of vessel or maritime facility

    ``(a) OFFENSES.--It shall be unlawful for any person--

    ``(1) to willfully--

    ``(A) set fire to, damage, destroy, disable, or wreck any vessel; or

    ``(B) place or cause to be placed a destructive device or destructive substance in, upon, or in proximity to, or otherwise make or cause to be made an unworkable or unusable or hazardous to work or use, any vessel (as defined in section 3 of title 1), or any part or other materials used or intended to be used in connection with the operation of a vessel; or

    ``(C) set fire to, damage, destroy, disable, or displace a destructive device or destructive substance in, upon, or in proximity to, any maritime facility, including any aid to navigation, lock, canal, or vessel traffic service facility or equipment, or interfere by force or violence with the operation of such maritime facility, if such action is likely to endanger the safety of any vessel in navigation;

    ``(D) set fire to, damage, destroy, disable, or place a destructive device or destructive substance in, upon, or in proximity to any appliance, structure, property, machine, apparatus, or any facility or other material used or intended to be used in connection with the operation, maintenance, loading, unloading, or storage of any vessel or any passenger or cargo carried on, or intended to be carried on, any vessel;

    ``(E) perform an act of violence against or incapacitate an individual on a vessel, if such act of violence or incapacitation is likely to endanger the safety of the vessel or those on board;

    ``(F) perform an act of violence against a person that causes or is likely to cause serious bodily injury in, upon, or in proximity to any appliance, structure, property, machine, apparatus, or any facility or other material used or intended to be used in connection with the operation, maintenance, loading, unloading, or storage of any vessel or any passenger or cargo carried or intended to be carried on any vessel; or

    ``(G) communicate information, knowing the information to be false and under circumstances in which such information may reasonably be believed, thereby endangering the safety of any vessel in navigation; or

    ``(2) to attempt or conspire to do anything prohibited under paragraph (1).

    ``(b) PENALTY.--Any person who--

    ``(1) violates subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(1) shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned for a maximum life imprisonment term, or both, and if death results, shall be subject to the death penalty; and

    ``(2) violates subsection (a)(2) or subparagraph (C), (D), (E), (F), or (G) of subsection (a)(1) shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    ``(c) ADDITIONAL PENALTIES.--Any person who is fined or imprisoned in accordance with subsection (b) for an offense that involved a vessel that, at the time the violation occurred, carried high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned for not less than 30 years, or for life.

[Page: S9914]

    ``(d) THREATENED OFFENSE.--Any person who willfully imparts or conveys any threat to do an act which would violate this chapter, with an apparent determination and will to carry out the threat, shall be--

    ``(1) fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; and

    ``(2) liable for all costs incurred as a result of such threat.

    ``(e) DEFINITIONS.--For purposes of this section--

    ``(1) the term `destructive device' has the meaning as such term in section 921(a)(4);

    ``(2) the term `destructive substance' has the meaning as such term in section 31;

    ``(3) the term `high-level radioactive waste' has the meaning as such term in section 2(12) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(12));

    ``(4) the term `serious bodily injury' has the meaning as such term in section 1365(g); and

    ``(5) the term `spent nuclear fuel' has the meaning as such term in section 2(23) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(23)).``§1373. Imparting or conveying false information

    ``(a) IN GENERAL.--Any person who imparts or conveys, or causes to be imparted or conveyed, false information, knowing the information to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made or to be made, to do any act that is an offense under this chapter or chapter 2, 97, or 111, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000, which shall be recoverable in a civil action brought in the name of the United States.

    ``(b) INCREASED PENALTY.--Any person who willfully and maliciously, or with reckless disregard for the safety of human life, imparts or conveys, or causes to be imparted or conveyed, false information, knowing the information to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made by or to be made, to do any act that is an offense under this chapter or chapter 2, 97, or 111, shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.''.

    (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--The table of chapters at the beginning of title 18, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 65 the following:

   ``66. Maritime Vessels

   1371''.

   SEC. 1102. CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOR PLACEMENT OF DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES OR SUBSTANCES IN UNITED STATES JURISDICTIONAL WATERS.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 111 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2280 the following:``§2280A. Devices or substances in waters of the United States likely to destroy or damage ships

    ``(a) IN GENERAL.--Any person who knowingly places or causes to be placed in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by any means, a device or substance that is likely to destroy or cause damage to a ship or its cargo, or cause interference with the safe navigation of vessels or interference with maritime commerce, such as by damaging or destroying marine terminals, facilities, and any other maritime structure or entity used in maritime commerce, with the intent of causing such destruction or damage--

    ``(1) shall be fined in accordance with this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life; and

    ``(2) if the death of any person results from conduct prohibited under this section, may be punished by death.

    ``(b) APPLICABILITY.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to otherwise lawfully authorized and conducted activities of the United States Government.''.

    (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--The table of sections for chapter 111 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2280 the following:

   ``2280A. Devices or substances in waters of the United States likely to destroy or damage ships.''.

   SEC. 1103. PIRACY AND PRIVATEERING.

    Chapter 81 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``CHAPTER 81--PIRACY AND PRIVATEERING

   ``Sec.

   ``1651. Piracy.

   ``1652. Crimes against United States persons or property on board a ship or maritime structure.

   ``1653. Crimes against persons on board a ship or maritime structure within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

   ``1654. Crimes by United States citizens or resident aliens.

   ``1655. Privateering.

   ``1656. Theft or conversion of vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects.

   ``1657. Intentional wrecking or plunder of a vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects.

   ``1658. Knowing receipt of an illegally acquired vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects.

   ``1659. Attempts.

   ``1660. Accessories.

   ``1661. Inapplicability to United States Government activities.``§1651. Piracy

    ``Any person who commits the crime of piracy and is afterwards brought into, or found in, the United States shall be imprisoned for life. ``§1652. Crimes against United States persons or property on board a ship or maritime structure

    ``Any person who commits any illegal act of violence, detention, or depredation against the United States, including any vessel of the United States, citizen of the United States, any commercial structure owned in whole or in part by a United States citizen or resident alien, or any United States citizen or resident alien, or the property of that citizen or resident alien, on board a ship or maritime structure and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. ``§1653. Crimes against persons on board a ship or maritime structure within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

    ``Any person who commits any illegal act of violence, detention, or depredation against an individual on board a ship or maritime structure, or the property of that individual, in waters or submerged lands thereunder, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. ``§1654. Crimes by United States citizens or resident aliens

    ``Any person, being a United States citizen or resident alien, or purporting to act under the authority of the United States, who commits any illegal act of violence, detention, or depredation against an individual on board a ship or maritime structure, or the property of that individual, shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. ``§1655. Privateering

    ``(a) OFFENSE.--It shall be unlawful for any person to furnish, fit out, arm, or serve in a privateer or private vessel used to commit any illegal act of violence, detention, or depredation against an individual, or the property of that individual, or any vessel or maritime structure without the express authority of the United States Government when--

    ``(1) the perpetrator of the act is a United States citizen or resident alien, or purports to act under authority of the United States;

    ``(2) the individual against whom the act is committed is a United States citizen or resident alien or the property, vessel, or maritime structure involved is owned, in whole or in part, by a United States citizen or resident alien; or

    ``(3) some element of the illegal act of violence, detention, or depredation is committed in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    ``(b) PENALTY.--Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.``§1656. Theft or conversion of vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects

    ``(a) OFFENSE.--It shall be unlawful for any person who is a captain, officer, crewman, or passenger of a vessel or maritime structure to assist in the theft or conversion of such vessel or maritime structure, or its cargo or effects when--

    ``(1) the perpetrator is a United States citizen or resident alien, or purports to act under the authority of the United States;

    ``(2) the vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects is owned in whole or in part by a United States citizen or resident alien; or

    ``(3) some element of the theft or conversion is committed in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    ``(b) PENALTY.--Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.``§1657. Intentional wrecking or plunder of a vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects

    ``(a) OFFENSE.--It shall be unlawful for any person to--

    ``(1) intentionally cause the wrecking of a vessel or maritime structure by act or omission, either directly such as by intentional grounding, or indirectly by modification or destruction of any navigational marker or safety device;

    ``(2) intentionally plunder, steal, or destroy a vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects when such vessel or maritime structure is in distress, wrecked, lost, stranded, or cast away; or

    ``(3) intentionally obstruct or interfere with the rescue of a person on board a vessel or maritime structure in distress, wrecked, lost, stranded, or cast away, or the legal salvage of such a vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects, when--

    ``(A) the perpetrator is a United States citizen or resident alien, or purports to act under authority of the United States;

    ``(B) the vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects is owned in whole or in part by a United States citizen or resident alien; or

    ``(C) some element of the theft or conversion is committed in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    ``(b) PENALTY.--Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.``§1658. Knowing receipt of an illegally acquired vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or effects

    ``Any person who knowingly receives or acquires a vessel, maritime structure, cargo, or

[Page: S9915]

effects converted or obtained by action falling under any section of this chapter shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. ``§1659. Attempts

    Any person who attempts any act which, if committed, would constitute an offense under this chapter shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. ``§1660. Accessories

    ``(a) COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE.--Any person who knowingly assists any person in the commission of an act that constitutes an offense under this chapter shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    ``(b) AVOIDANCE OF CONSEQUENCES.--Any person who knowingly assists any person in avoiding the consequences of an act that constitutes an offense under this chapter shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.``§1661. Inapplicability to United States Government activities

    ``Nothing in this chapter shall apply to otherwise lawful activities--

    ``(1) carried out by, or at the direction of, the United States Government; or

    ``(2) undertaken under a letter or marque and reprisal issued by the United States Government.''.

   SEC. 1104. USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON OR EXPLOSIVE ON A PASSENGER VESSEL.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 39 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 831 the following:``§832. Use of a dangerous weapon or explosive on a passenger vessel

    ``(a) OFFENSE.--It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully--

    ``(1) commit an act, including the use of a dangerous weapon, explosive, or incendiary device, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury to a crew member or passenger of a passenger vessel or any other person while on board a passenger vessel; or

    ``(2) attempt, threaten, or conspire to do any act referred to in paragraph (1).

    ``(b) PENALTY.--An person who violates subsection (a) shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    ``(c) AGGRAVATED OFFENSE.--Any person who commits an offense described in subsection (a) in a circumstance in which--

    ``(1) the vessel was carrying a passenger at the time of the offense; or

    ``(2) the offense has resulted in the death of any person;

   shall be guilty of an aggravated offense and shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

    ``(d) APPLICABILITY.--This section shall apply to vessels that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and vessels carrying passengers who are United States citizens or resident aliens, wherever located.

    ``(e) DEFINITIONS.--For purposes of this section--

    ``(1) the term `dangerous weapon' has the meaning given such term in section 930(g);

    ``(2) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given such term in section 232(5);

    ``(3) the term `passenger' has the same meaning given such term in section 2101(21) of title 46;

    ``(4) the term `passenger vessel' has the same meaning given such term in section 2101(22) of title 46; and

    ``(5) the term `serious bodily injury' has the meaning given such term in section 1365(g).''.

    (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--The table of sections for chapter 39 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 831 the following:

   ``832. Use of a dangerous weapon or explosive on a passenger vessel.''.

   SEC. 1105. SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO HEAVE TO AND FOR OBSTRUCTION OF BOARDING AND PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 109 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:``§2237. Sanctions for failure to heave to; sanctions for obstruction of boarding or providing false information

    ``(a) FAILURE TO HEAVE TO.--It shall be unlawful for the master, operator, or person in charge of a vessel of the United States, or a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, to knowingly fail to obey an order to heave to on being ordered to do so by an authorized Federal law enforcement officer.

    ``(b) OBSTRUCTION OF BOARDING AND PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION.--It shall be unlawful for any person on board a vessel of the United States or a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to--

    ``(1) forcibly assault, resist, oppose, prevent, impede, intimidate, or interfere with a boarding or other law enforcement action authorized by any Federal law, or to resist a lawful arrest; or

    ``(2) provide information to a Federal law enforcement officer during a boarding of a vessel regarding the vessel's destination, origin, ownership, registration, nationality, cargo, or crew that the person knows is false.

    ``(c) LIMITATIONS.--This section shall not limit the authority of--

    ``(1) an officer under section 581 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1581) or any other provision of law enforced or administered by the Secretary of the Treasury or the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security of the Department of Homeland Security; or

    ``(2) a Federal law enforcement officer under any law of the United States to order a vessel to stop or heave to.

    ``(d) CONSENT OR OBJECTION TO ENFORCEMENT.--A foreign nation may consent or waive objection to the enforcement of United States law by the United States under this section by radio, telephone, or similar oral or electronic means, which consent or waiver may be proven by certification of the Secretary of State or the Secretary's designee.

    ``(e) PENALTY.--Any person who intentionally violates this section shall be fined in accordance with this title and imprisoned not more than 1 year.

    ``(f) DEFINITIONS.--For purposes of this section--

    ``(1) the terms `vessel of the United States' and `vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' have the same meanings as such terms in section 3 of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46 U.S.C. App. 1903);

    ``(2) the term `heave to' means to cause a vessel to slow, come to a stop, or adjust its course or speed to account for the weather conditions and sea state to facilitate a law enforcement boarding; and

    ``(3) the term `Federal law enforcement officer' has the same meaning as such term in section 115.''.

    (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--The table of sections for chapter 109 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

   ``2237. Sanctions for failure to heave to; sanctions for obstruction of boarding or providing false information.''.

   SEC. 1106. CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST MARITIME NAVIGATION.

    Section 2280(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

    (1) in paragraph (1)--

    (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (F), (G), and (H) as (G), (H), and (I), respectively;

    (B) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:

    ``(F) destroys, damages, alters, moves, or tampers with any aid to maritime navigation maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation under the authority of section 4 of the Act of May 13, 1954, (33 U.S.C. 984) or the Coast Guard pursuant to section 81 of title 14, or lawfully maintained by the Coast Guard pursuant to section 83 of title 14, if such act endangers or is likely to endanger the safe navigation of a ship;''; and

    (C) in subparagraph (I), as so redesignated, by striking ``through (G)'' and inserting ``through (H)''; and

    (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(C) or (E)'' and inserting ``(C), (E), or (F)''.

   SEC. 1107. CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOR MALICIOUS DUMPING.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 111 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:``§2282. Knowing discharge or release

    ``(a) ENDANGERMENT OF HUMAN LIFE.--Any person who knowingly discharges or releases oil, a hazardous material, a noxious liquid substance, or any other substance into the navigable waters of the United States or the adjoining shoreline with the intent to endanger human life, health, or welfare--

    ``(1) shall be fined in accordance with this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life; and

    ``(2) if the death of any person results from conduct prohibited under this section, may be punished by death.

    ``(b) ENDANGERMENT OF MARINE ENVIRONMENT.--Any person who knowingly discharges or releases oil, a hazardous material, a noxious liquid substance, or any other substance into the navigable waters of the United States or the adjacent shoreline with the intent to endanger the marine environment shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

    ``(c) DEFINITIONS.--For purposes of this section--

    ``(1) the term `discharge' means any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, or dumping;

    ``(2) the term `hazardous material' has the same meaning given such term in section 2101(14) of title 46;

    ``(3) the term `marine environment' has the same meaning given such term in section 2101(15) of title 46;

    ``(4) the term `navigable waters' has the same meaning given such term in section 502(7) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362(7)), and also includes the territorial sea of the United States as described in Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988; and

    ``(5) the term `noxious liquid substance' has the same meaning given such term in the MARPOL Protocol as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901(a)(3)).''.

    (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--The table of sections for chapter 111 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

   ``2282. Knowing discharge or release.''.

   SEC. 1108. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO COORDINATE PORT-RELATED CRIME DATA COLLECTION.

    (a) REGULATIONS.--The Attorney General shall issue regulations to--

[Page: S9916]

    (1) require the reporting by a carrier that is the victim of a cargo theft offense to the Attorney General of information on the cargo theft offense (including offenses occurring outside ports of entry and ports of shipment origination) that identifies the port of entry, the port where the shipment originated, where the theft occurred, and any other information specified by the Attorney General;

    (2) create a database to contain the reports described in paragraph (1) and integrate those reports, to the extent feasible, with other noncriminal justice and intelligence data, such as insurer bill of lading, cargo contents and value, point of origin, and lien holder filings; and

    (3) prescribe procedures for access to the database created in accordance with paragraph (2) by appropriate Federal, State, and local governmental agencies and private companies or organizations, while limiting access to privacy of the information in accordance with other applicable Federal laws.

    (b) MODIFICATION OF DATABASES.--

    (1) IN GENERAL.--United States Government agencies with significant regulatory or law enforcement responsibilities at United States ports shall, to the extent feasible, modify their information databases to ensure the collection and retrievability of data relating to crime, terrorism, and related activities at, or affecting, United States ports.

    (2) DESIGNATION OF AGENCIES.--The Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall designate the agencies referred to in paragraph (1).

    (c) OUTREACH PROGRAM.--The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee established under section 70112 of title 46, United States Code, and the appropriate Federal and State agencies, shall establish an outreach program--

    (1) to work with State and local law enforcement officials to harmonize the reporting of data on cargo theft among States and localities with the United States Government's reports; and

    (2) to work with local port security committees to disseminate cargo theft information to appropriate law enforcement officials.

    (d) ANNUAL REPORT.--The Attorney General shall report annually to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the implementation of this section.

    (e) INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN SHIPMENTS BY CARRIER; STATE PROSECUTIONS.--

    (1) STATE PROSECUTIONS.--Section 659 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

    (A) in the first undesignated paragraph--

    (i) by striking ``Whoever embezzles'' and inserting the following:

    ``(a) OFFENSE; PENALTY.--Whoever--

    ``(1) embezzles'';

    (ii) by striking ``from any pipeline system'' and all that follows through ``with intent to convert to his own use''; and

    (iii) by striking ``or'' at the end;

    (B) in the second undesignated paragraph--

    (i) by striking ``Whoever buys'' and inserting the following:

    ``(2) buys''; and

    (ii) by striking ``or'' at the end;

    (C) in the third undesignated paragraph--

    (i) by striking ``Whoever embezzles'' and inserting the following''

    ``(3) embezzles''; and

    (ii) by striking ``with intent to convert to his own use'';

    (D) in the fourth undesignated paragraph, by striking ``Whoever embezzles'' and inserting the following:

    ``(4) embezzles'';

    (E) in the fifth undesignated paragraph, by striking ``Shall in each case'' and inserting the following:

   ``shall in each case'';

    (F) in the sixth undesignated paragraph, by striking ``The'' and inserting the following:

    ``(b) LOCATION OF OFFENSE.--The'';

    (G) in the seventh undesignated paragraph, by striking ``The'' and inserting the following''

    ``(c) SEPARATE OFFENSE.--The'';

    (H) in the eighth undesignated paragraph, by striking ``To'' and inserting the following:

    ``(d) PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE.--To'';

    (I) in the ninth undesignated paragraph, by striking ``A'' and inserting the following:

    ``(e) PROSECUTION.--A''; and

    (J) by adding at the end the following:

    ``(f) CIVIL PENALTY.--

    ``(1) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and in addition to any penalties that may be available under any other provision of law, a person who is found by the Secretary of Homeland Security, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, to have violated this section or a regulation issued under this section shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 for each violation.

    ``(2) SEPARATE VIOLATIONS.--Each day of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate violation.

    ``(3) AMOUNT OF PENALTY.--

    ``(A) IN GENERAL.--The amount of a civil penalty for a violation of this section or a regulation issued under this section shall be assessed by the Attorney General, or the designee of the Attorney General, by written notice.

    ``(B) CONSIDERATIONS.--In determining the amount of a civil penalty under this paragraph, the Attorney General shall take into account--

    ``(i) the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the prohibited act committed; and

    ``(ii) with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.

    ``(4) MODIFICATION OF PENALTY.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may compromise, modify, or remit, with or without conditions, any civil penalty that is subject to imposition or which has been imposed under this section.

    ``(5) FAILURE TO PAY.--If a person fails to pay an assessment of a civil penalty after it has become final, the Secretary of Homeland Security may refer the matter to the Attorney General for collection in an appropriate district court of the United States.

    ``(g) DEFINITION.--For purposes of this section, the term `goods or chattels' means to be moving as an interstate or foreign shipment at all points between the point of origin and the final destination (as evidenced by the waybill or other shipping document of the shipment) regardless of any temporary stop while awaiting transshipment or otherwise.''.

    (2) FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES.--Pursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall review the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to determine whether sentencing enhancement is appropriate for any offense under section 659 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this subsection.

    (3) ANNUAL REPORT.--The Attorney General shall annually submit to Congress a report that shall include an evaluation of law enforcement activities relating to the investigation and prosecution of offenses under section 659 of title 18, United States Code.

Subtitle B--Protecting United States Ports Against Terrorism and Crime

   SEC. 1201. DEFINITIONS.

    In this subtitle:

    (1) AIRCRAFT.--The term ``aircraft'' has the meaning given that term in section 40102 of title 49, United States Code.

    (2) CAPTAIN-OF-THE-PORT.--The term ``Captain-of-the-Port'', with respect to a United States seaport, means the individual designated by the Commandant of the Coast Guard as the Captain-of-the-Port at that seaport.

    (3) COMMON CARRIER.--The term ``common carrier'' means any person that holds itself out to the general public as a provider for hire of a transportation by water, land, or air of merchandise, whether or not the person actually operates the vessel, vehicle, or aircraft by which the transportation is provided, between a port or place and a port or place in the United States.

    (4) CONTAINER.--The term ``container'' means a container that is used or designed for use for the international transportation of merchandise by vessel, vehicle, or aircraft.

    (5) DIRECTORATE.--The term ``Directorate'' means the Border and Transportation Security Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security.

    (6) MANUFACTURER.--The term ``manufacturer'' means a person who fabricates or assembles merchandise for sale in commerce.

    (7) MERCHANDISE.--The term ``merchandise'' has the meaning given that term in section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1401).

    (8) SHIPMENT.--The term ``shipment'' means cargo traveling in international commerce under a bill of lading.

    (9) UNITED STATES SEAPORT.--The term ``United States seaport'' means a place in the United States on a waterway with shoreside facilities for the intermodal transfer of cargo containers that are used in international trade.

    (11) VEHICLE.--The term ``vehicle'' has the meaning given that term in section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1401).

    (12) VESSEL.--The term ``vessel'' has the meaning given that term in section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1401).

   SEC. 1202. DESIGNATED SECURITY AUTHORITY.

    The Captain-of-the-Port of each United States seaport shall be the primary authority responsible for security at the United States seaport and shall--

    (1) coordinate security at such seaport; and

    (2) be the point of contact on seaport security issues for civilian and commercial port entities at such seaport.

   SEC. 1203. PENALTIES FOR INACCURATE MANIFEST.

    (a) FALSITY OR LACK OF MANIFEST.--Section 584 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1584) is amended--

    (1) in subsection (a)(1)--

    (A) by striking ``$1,000'' each place it appears and inserting ``$50,000''; and

    (B) by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting ``$50,000''; and

    (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

    ``(c) CRIMINAL PENALTIES.--Any person who ships or prepares for shipment any merchandise bound for the United States who intentionally provides inaccurate or false information, whether inside or outside the United States, with respect to such merchandise for the purpose of introducing such merchandise into the United States in violation of the laws of the United States, shall be liable, upon conviction of a violation of this subsection, for a fine of not more than $50,000 or imprisonment for 1 year, or both; except that if the importation of such merchandise into the United States is prohibited, such person shall be liable for an additional fine of not more than $50,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.''.

[Page: S9917]

    (b) PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ARRIVAL, REPORTING, ENTRY, AND CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS.--Subsections (b) and (c) of section 436 of Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1436) are amended to read as follows:

    ``(b) CIVIL PENALTY.--Any master, person in charge of a vessel, vehicle, or aircraft pilot who commits any violation listed in subsection (a) shall be liable for a civil penalty of $25,000 for the first violation, and $50,000 for each subsequent violation, and any conveyance used in connection with any such violation is subject to seizure and forfeiture.

    ``(c) CRIMINAL PENALTY.--In addition to being liable for a civil penalty under subsection (b), any master, person in charge of a vessel, vehicle, or aircraft pilot who intentionally commits or causes another to commit any violation listed in subsection (a) shall be liable, upon conviction, for a fine of not more than $50,000 or imprisonment for 1 year, or both; except that if the conveyance has, or is discovered to have had, on board any merchandise (other than sea stores or the equivalent for conveyances other than vessels) the importation of which into the United States is prohibited, such individual shall be liable for an additional fine of not more than $50,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.''.

   SEC. 1204. INSPECTION OF MERCHANDISE AT FOREIGN FACILITIES.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to Congress a plan to--

    (1) station inspectors from the Directorate, other Federal agencies, or the private sector at the foreign facilities of manufacturers or common carriers to profile and inspect merchandise and the containers or other means by which such merchandise is transported as they are prepared for shipment on a vessel that will arrive at any port or place in the United States;

    (2) develop procedures to ensure the security of merchandise inspected as described in paragraph (1) until it reaches the United States; and

    (3) permit merchandise inspected as described in paragraph (1) to receive expedited inspection upon arrival in the United States.

7A) Senate Confirmation of Paul Morgan Longsworth

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Nos. 300 and 301.

I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The nominations considered and confirmed are as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Paul Morgan Longsworth , of Virginia, to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security Administration.

7B) Executive Nomination of John Joseph Grossenbacher

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

John Joseph Grossenbacher, of Illinois, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the remainder of the term expiring June 30, 2004, vice Richard A. Meserve, resigned.

John Joseph Grossenbacher, of Illinois, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a term expiring June 30, 2009. (Reappointment)

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.