Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

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

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

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

Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1380

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

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the able Senator from Mississippi is correct in stating that this provision would apply postemployment standards to more employees at the Department of Homeland Security than other executive departments. The amendment applies the same standard, as I indicated, as is applied to Senators and their senior staffs. The reason I believe this amendment is appropriate is that the legislation creating the Department gave the Department extraordinary authorities. For example, the Department has extraordinary flexibility with regard to civil service rules and procurement standards. Secretary Ridge and his staff were given unusual discretion and perhaps that is why lobbyists are swarming all over the Department. I believe my amendment is appropriate. I think it is in the interests of the American people that we adopt this amendment. Congress should do no less. I urge my colleagues to join in voting for the amendment.

Mr. BYRD. I send the amendment to the desk.

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

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last week, the Senate approved a bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense. That bill totaled some $368.6 billion. It is an important bill, both in size and in importance. That $368.6 billion bill pays our men and women in uniform. It pays for all the advanced weapons and technology that make the Armed Forces of the United States second to none on the planet. The Department of Defense appropriations bill funds the forces and activities that keep the United States at the forefront of military activities around the globe, protecting American interests and lives as well as responding to humanitarian and security crises in distant lands. That $368.6 billion does not include, mind you, the actual costs of the war on terrorism. Our activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, aside from salaries paid to military personnel, are funded through supplemental appropriations--over $60 billion thus far. But that $368.6 billion does provide the weapons, the forces, the training, and the infrastructure that allow the Armed Forces to provide a very high level of preparedness, a very high level of readiness, and a very high level of security. It provides the means to keep U.S. troops stationed in Korea, Japan, and Europe as a uniformed tripwire and global 911 emergency service. In its unanimous vote in favor of the bill, the Senate has indicated its support for that level of funding and for fully supporting the men and women serving in our military. This week, the Senate has debated an equally important appropriations bill. The bill under consideration this week funds the Department of Homeland Security. It pays the salaries of the men and women whose job it is to keep safe the people of the United States here at home. It pays for the advanced technology needed to prepare American communities to defend against and respond to attacks against Americans on U.S. soil and in U.S. airspace. It pays for the forces, border patrol and inspectors strung out along America's vast land and sea borders, striving to keep dangerous people and materials out of our vulnerable heartland. It pays for America's infrastructure security, America's traveling public. In every way and by every measure, the activities funded in the homeland security appropriations bill are as important as those funded in the Department of Defense appropriations bill. So how much money will we spend on protecting Americans here at home in fiscal year 2004? Well, it is not $368.6 billion. Mr. President, it is nowhere close to $368.6 billion. It is not half that amount, or even a quarter of that amount. It is just $28.5 billion. In fiscal year 2004, this bill funds the Department of Homeland Security at $28.5 billion, almost 13 times less than the amount approved for the Department of Defense. Do we care about the world outside our borders 13 times more than we care about Americans at home? I do not think so. Do we care about guarding Baghdad 13 times more than we care about guarding our own borders? I do not think so. Do we care about patrolling the skies over Afghanistan and Iraq 13 times more than patrolling the thousands of commercial airliners streaking over our heads right now? I do not think so. I do not believe that this amount is adequate. Over the last year, we have all read the press reports about security lapses at our airports, border checkpoints, and elsewhere. Things are improving, but not nearly fast enough. This bill does not do enough or go far enough to provide the Federal resources necessary to assist a community that falls victim to a terrorist attack, and it is woefully inadequate to provide individual States and communities the resources to prepare themselves to respond to such an attack. Indeed, given the number of reservists and National Guard troops who have been called into active service, our Federal Government is robbing States and communities of critical core defenders. If an attack does come, state governors may not have the resources on hand to respond effectively, and Federal support may or may not materialize in a timely manner, especially if attacks occur at a number of places simultaneously. The so-called war on terrorism has put troops bristling with arms across the globe, but it is leaving America with a hollow core, its towns and communities undefended. I know, as does everyone who reads the paper or watches the news, what a difficult State the economy is in. I, too, have shaken my head at the latest forecast on the size of the deficit. At an estimated $455 billion, this year's deficit surpasses even the Department of Defense budget. We have had a very difficult year in the Appropriations Committee, trying to craft bills under these circumstances. But just as we should not and will not shortchange the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line every day in Baghdad, Kabul, Seoul, and elsewhere, we should not shortchange the families they leave behind and the men and women in uniform who patrol our coast, our borders, our airports, and our streets, and who prepare every day to face the unthinkable of a deadly biological, chemical, or nuclear attack here at home. These defenders of American security here at home need all the help that we can give them. They, too, need new tools to help them face and defeat their enemies. They need sensors that can detect toxins and pathogens in near real time, so that contaminated areas can be cordoned off and proper decontamination procedures initiated. They need communications systems that let doctors and epidemiologists track and contain disease outbreaks, be they from infected prairie dogs, mosquitos, or more nefarious vectors. They need scanners to rapidly and effectively check the million of tons of cargo that enter the United States every day. They need better ways to protect the free and open commerce that will return the United States to a vibrant and growing economy. These tools and technologies may not be as sexy and high tech as antiballistic missile technology, or as imposing as an Aegis cruiser, but they are just as necessary for creating and maintaining the security and well-being of our Nation. We must not forget that it is the individual communities and their State governments that will bear the brunt of any response to a terrorist event, just as they bear the brunt of responding to other natural and manmade disasters. On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked on two fronts, in New York and in Washington, DC. Both locations were well served by their large emergency response teams of police, firefighters, and rescue crews. The fact is, every State and every community must be prepared to respond, or to assist neighboring communities should multiple attacks occur--whether it be Fairmount, WV, or Fairbanks, AK, Chicago, IL, or St. Paul, MN. Many communities are not ready. The first line of prevention--and defense--is the local and state leadership, not the Federal Department of Homeland Security. While the Department of Homeland Security fiddles with selecting a common computer operating system, the towns around Rome may burn. These communities need guidance, and funding, and they need it now. The Department of Homeland Security needs to get its game face on and get moving, both to do its many jobs better, and to fulfill its role in helping States and local governments to prepare for the unthinkable.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Hollings. The Coast Guard estimate on the first year cost of implementing the port security standards was $1.1 billion. That was the Coast Guard estimate: $1.1 billion. Let me say again, that was the Coast Guard estimate. Let's see how much we provided. Previously appropriated: $365 million; the committee bill, $150 million; the Hollings amendment, $300 million--making a total of $815 million. So $815 million, even including the amount in the distinguished Senator's amendment, is still well short of the $1.1 billion that the Coast Guard estimated would be the first year cost. I note that the Department received over $1 billion of applications. So the Department can spend this money. It can spend this money well. The only reason that the Department has not spent all of the money that was approved by Congress last year is that the administration refused to spend the money. They did not get their act together and agree to spend the money until Congress directed them to do so in the April supplemental. We are talking about national defense here. We are talking about defense of the homeland. We are talking about homeland security. That is the most important part of national defense: defense of the homeland. Oh, we spend $1 billion a day for national defense, not including homeland security--$1 billion a day, a total of $368 billion for this next fiscal year. That is $1 for every minute--I am looking at my watch--that is $1 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. I have already been speaking for a minute. It takes me 5 minutes to say, ``Good morning, how do you do?'' But $1 per minute for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. We spend $1 billion a week in Iraq. We invaded a sovereign state without being provoked to do so. That sovereign state did not attack us. But under the preemption doctrine of the Bush administration, we attacked, we invaded a sovereign state that had not provoked us, that had not attacked us and was not and never has been, never has constituted an imminent threat to the security of the United States. I voted against that resolution on October 11 of last year. I am proud I did so. I don't back up one centimeter in the statements I made at that time when I said that contrary to what the Bush administration was saying, contrary to what the President of the United States was saying, Iraq did not constitute an imminent threat to the security of the United States. It didn't then. It doesn't now. And it hasn't at any point in between. I said it then. I say it again. Yet we are spending $1 billion a week in Iraq. We ought not to have been there. We ought not to have sent our people over there. But we can save that for another day. I am a minuteman when it comes to discussing that subject. If I had been living in 1775, I would have been one of the members of Captain Parker's minutemen who assembled on the green of Lexington. No, we had no business sending half of the combat-ready brigades in our Army, half of the total number of brigades. We have 33 brigades; half of them, 16, are in Iraq. And then we talk about spending money here to protect our ports, and it is too much money to spend? No. I compliment the Senator from South Carolina on his amendment. We are getting men killed over there daily, on the average of one a day in Iraq. How long, how long are we going to continue to spend $1 billion a week in Iraq? How long are we going to see the body bags of American men and women coming back from Iraq, a war that we should not have fought? There was no reason to fight that war. Now, with respect to the amendment, the Coast Guard has estimated that it will cost the ports $5.4 billion during the next decade to implement Maritime Transportation Security Act standards, including $1.1 billion this year. Yet the President did not request one dime for port security. This amendment would increase port security grant funding from the $150 million contained in the bill by $300 million. This would provide a total of $450 million for this program. As I noted yesterday on my amendment, the Commandant of the Coast Guard testified before the House authorizing committee, on June 3, 2003, about the implementation of the Maritime Transportation Security Act legislation. He said: The regulatory impact on the Maritime industry will be significant, and the time line for implementing the new robust maritime security requirements is exceptionally short. However, the administration, while aggressively supporting Federal security funding for the aviation industry, has failed in four straight spending requests to include a single penny for port security grants, even though 95 percent of all non-North American U.S. trade enters our 361 ports around the Nation. This year, the Transportation Security Administration received over $1 billion of applications from the ports for limited funding that was approved by Congress last year. There clearly is a demand from the ports for help to harden physical security to reduce the Nation's well-documented seaport vulnerability. The Hollings amendment addresses what many experts view as the greatest vulnerability in the Nation's defenses here at home. During the Senate Appropriations Committee's Homeland Security hearings last year, one witness, Stephen Flynn, noted that the Nation's seaports are the only part of an international boundary in which the Federal Government invests no money in terms of security. ``Most ports,'' said Stephen Flynn, ``the best you can get is a chain-link fence with maybe, maybe some barbed wire.'' That was Stephen Flynn testifying before our Appropriations Committee in April a year ago. Who is Stephen Flynn? Well, let's see. Stephen Flynn was testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations. Stephen Flynn is a senior fellow, a Ph.D. senior fellow, national security studies, Council on Foreign Relations. He said he had just retired from the Coast Guard after 20 years of service the previous March 15. And he had assumed the position as the Jeane Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security with the Council on Foreign Relations. He concluded his testimony by saying this, calling attention to the need for security at our ports: This is a problem of the very first order. This is not a low politics issue. This is a problem that should not just be keeping me awake at night. This should be one that the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, the U.S. Trade Representative, and certainly the President of the United States should be deeply concerned about because what we are talking about is the sustainability of global commerce and those on-ramps and off-ramps at our ports, and they do not have security right now. So there you are. It should not only be keeping these eminent personages awake at night, it should be keeping us Senators awake at night. And it may do so at some point. I hope not. Madam President, I laud the distinguished Senator from South Carolina on his amendment and on his statement in support of the amendment. He is not a Johnny-come-lately on this matter. He is the ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and on our Appropriations Committee he is a man of great seniority and experience. He has been chairman and is now ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State. So he lacks nothing when it comes to experience. He is from a State that has great seaports. He has been talking about this particular matter for many months. So I salute him and I again compliment and thank him. I support his amendment. I yield the floor.

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

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

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

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I support the amendment of Senator Conrad and Senator Dorgan. I understand the amendment also has the support of the majority. The amendment would direct the Under Secretary of emergency Preparedness and Response to review and report back to the Homeland Security appropriations Subcommittee on efforts to resolve the outstanding disaster claims from the University of North Dakota. Only $718,675 is in dispute between the University and the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate related to damages the university sustained during the 1997 flood. These claims have been pending for 6 years. Senator Conrad and Senator Dorgan have been working to resolve them, but the Department has been less than cooperative. I support the efforts of my colleagues to bring this matter to closure.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Washington for offering this amendment. First, I compliment the able Senator for the great work she does on the Appropriations Committee. She has been a stalwart in the Appropriations Committee from the beginning of her career. In so doing, she follows in the steps of two great Senators from Washington with whom I served many years ago: Scoop Jackson and Warren Magnuson. Magnuson served on the Appropriations Committee just as Patty Murray serves on that committee. Those were very forceful Senators, very active Senators. I knew Magnuson well, he being on the Appropriations Committee, as I say. But I knew Scoop Jackson even better. He was my supporter from the beginning of my career as a Senator who was involved in the leadership, first as Secretary of the Democratic Conference and then as Democratic whip and then as the leader. Scoop Jackson was always there. I should say in passing that the best whip the Senate ever had was the Senator who exceeds Robert Byrd, and that Senator is Harry Reid. He and I were alike in this respect: He is always on the floor. So was I, always on the floor. But Patty Murray is a supporter on the Appropriations Committee. She works hard. She is a Senator who certainly attends to her responsibilities with respect to her State, and she is also a Senator who has a national viewpoint. I think she exceeds all of us on my side of the aisle with respect to our work on the transportation matters, and I compliment her for that. She is following in that train of activity when she supports this amendment which she has brought to the attention of the Senate. I thank her for offering the amendment. The administration proposed to consolidate the Emergency Management Grant Program into a single first responder program. She has spoken to this already. So has the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee who manages this bill today from that side of the aisle. He, likewise, mentioned this in opposing the amendment. So the proposal of the administration is a result of a fundamental misunderstanding of the Emergency Management Grant Program. I am not saying that the distinguished Senator from Mississippi misunderstands it. He understands it well and he provided for it in the committee. I compliment him for that. But the Emergency Management Grant Program is the one Federal program that gives States resources to plan for what is called ``all hazards'' emergency management planning. That is exceedingly important. We must plan for responding to a terrorist attack but that does not mean we should lose the capability to plan for floods, tornadoes, and other natural disasters. I am very keenly aware of this, being from the Mountain State of West Virginia, where those clouds hover over the high mountains and where the steep hills enable storms to flow rapidly down those sharp mountainsides into the valleys, often narrow valleys, and create extremely dangerous hazards for the people who have to live in those valleys and others who have to travel through those valleys and into those valleys to work. I strongly support the amendment by the distinguished Senator from Washington. This is a proven program and I thank Chairman Cochran for agreeing to keep this as a separate program in the committee bill. This amendment would provide $100 million in addition to the funding in the committee bill. I, again, compliment the distinguished Senator from Washington for her excellent work on the committee on behalf of her State and on behalf of the Nation, and I compliment her on offering this amendment today. I strongly support it. As I say, it means a great deal to the people of my State, to their safety and their welfare. I hope all Senators will support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the motion to waive. With the realities of today's world, communities--both large and small--need to be prepared for the possibility of a terrorist attack. The frontline counterterrorism effort is composed of what we call first responders. These are the people who are first on the scene--the police officers, the firefighters, the emergency medical personnel, and so on. As they have always been, the men and women who serve in these departments are constantly on the job. They are always ready to fulfill their duty when their neighbors call for help. But the new threats of terrorism have forced these departments to refocus their training and restructure their budgets to respond to these threats. In many cases, the departments rely on small fundraisers to pay for equipment and training. However, expanded missions and continuing threats are pushing the price of security too high for many rural communities to afford. Grants through the Fire Act provide funds to help offset those costs for local firefighters. Unfortunately, the demand for funding has far outpaced the available dollars. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Fire Protection Association, only 13 percent of the fire departments have the equipment and training to handle an incident involving chemical or biological agents. Forty percent of fire department personnel involved in hazardous materials lack formal training in those duties. Only 10 percent of the fire departments in the United States have the personnel and the equipment to respond to a building collapse. The amendment by the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, and by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, would infuse critical dollars into local fire departments to help meet that demand. The administration proposed to fold this program into a single first responder grant account. I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Cochran, for deciding to retain this effective program as a separate account. Unfortunately, because the budget resolution resulted in inadequate funding for homeland security, the committee bill provides only $750 million--only $5 million more than the level for the current fiscal year. The program is authorized at a level of $900 million. The amendment would fund the program at the authorized level of $900 million. Terrorist incidents are primarily local events. The immediate response to the attacks at the World Trade Center came from the police and firefighters in New York City. The immediate response to the attack on the Pentagon came from the first responders in the neighboring communities. These events bear out the critical need for well-prepared and well- equipped local emergency response teams. The ramifications of an ill- prepared local community in today's world are too large. First responders will likely act alone in the initial critical moments of any emergency, no matter how large or small the emergency. In those moments, lives will be saved or lives will be lost. But these first responders cannot be expected to fund the fight against terrorism with bake sales, ice cream suppers, and bingo nights. That is why the support of the Federal Government--both in terms of funding and training--is so important for local police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel. I commend my colleagues for offering this amendment. It is a necessary amendment. The cause is great. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and infuse critical dollars into our Nation's fire departments.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered on behalf of the Senator from New Mexico calls upon the General Accounting Office to submit a report on the implementation of the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System known as SEVIS. amendment no. 1354 (Purpose: To ensure that there is a robust program of research and development for the Coast Guard) On page 50, line 16, after ``United States:'', insert the following: ``Provided further, That of the total amount provided under this heading, funding to operate and maintain the Coast Guard Research and Development Center shall continue at the fiscal year 2003 level: Provided further, That the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall conduct a study, the cost of which is not to exceed $350,000, to be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives, on the research and development priorities of the Coast Guard and a design for a new research and development organizational structure within the Coast Guard that ensures that the Coast Guard has access to the most advanced technology necessary to perform its missions effectively: Provided further, That the Commandant may seek an independent entity to conduct such a study:''. On page 67, line 8, before the period at the end, insert the following: ``: Provided further, That the Under Secretary for Science and Technology shall work with the Coast Guard Research and Development Center regarding research priorities for the Coast Guard: Provided further, That there may be credited to and used for the purposes of this appropriation funds received from State and local governments, other public authorities, private sources, and foreign countries, for expenses incurred for research, development, testing, and evaluation''.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered on behalf of Senator Dodd does two things: One, it ensures that funding to operate and maintain the Coast Guard's research and development, R&D, center in Connecticut is funded at levels provided in fiscal year 2003, which was $9 million supporting a staffing level of 107 employees. The Senate bill, as reported by the committee, denied the President's request for Coast Guard R&D and instead added $15 million to the Department's science and technology account to carry out the Coast Guard's R&D priorities. However, the committee intended for the operational costs of the Coast Guard's R&D center in fiscal year 2004 to be funded from the Coast Guard's operations and expenses budget. Two, the amendment directs the Commandant of the Coast Guard to conduct a study on the R&D priorities for the Coast Guard and to examine the existing R&D organizational structure of the Coast Guard. The amendment allows up to $350,000 to be spent on such a study. amendment no. 1355 On page 75, line 5 delete all beginning with ``after'' down through and including ``Act'', and insert: ``the Secretary of Homeland Security has published in the Federal Register the Department's privacy notice for CAPPS II or no later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, which is later''

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this technical amendment requires the General Accounting Office to report to the Committees on Appropriations on the privacy protections in the Transportation Security Administration's program known as, CAPPS II. This report will be delivered either 60 days after the Secretary of Homeland Security has published in the Federal Register the Department's privacy notice for CAPPS II, or no later than 60 days after enactment of this act, whichever is later. amendment no. 1356 (Purpose: To provide funding for oil spill prevention) On page 51, line 24, after the word ``equipment'', insert: ``including $3,500,000 for defense message system implementation and $1,000,000 for oil spill prevention efforts under the Ports and Waterways Safety Systems (PAWSS) program''.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Murray amendment included in the manager's package provides $1 million for the Ports and Waterways Safety Systems, PAWSS, which is the Coast Guard's program to improve waterway safety. The $1 million would continue efforts of the Coast Guard to upgrade technology at their Vessel Traffic Systems, VTS, which are located at nine U.S. ports. The amendment includes an offset of $1 million from the Coast Guard's Defense Messaging System Implementation. amendment no. 1357 On page 75, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following: Sec. 616 (a) Congress finds that-- (1) emergency responders are the first line of defense in protecting our Nation against terrorist attacks; (2) the Department of Homeland Security uses population as a factor when allocating grant funding to States and local governments for emergency responders; (3) population plays an important role in both formula and discretionary grants, which are administered by the Department of Homeland Security; (4) the number of people in any city or State often differs from estimates by the Census Bureau; (5) large groups of tourists regularly visit many American cities and states, but are not included in the resident population of these cities and states; and (6) the monetary needs of emergency responders are directly related to the amount of people they are responsible to protect. (b) It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Homeland Security should take into account tourist population as a factor when determining resource needs and potential vulnerabilities for the purpose of allocating funds for discretionary and formula grants.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment offered on behalf of Senator Reid, expresses the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Homeland Security should take into account tourist population as a factor when determining resource needs and potential vulnerabilities for the purpose of allocating funds for discretionary and formula grants. It is my understanding that this amendment has been cleared by the majority and has been adopted. amendment no. 1358 (Purpose: To require the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response to review any outstanding claims by the University of North Dakota relating to damages and costs associated with the April 1997 flooding in North Dakota and report to Congress on the efforts to resolve such claims) On page 75, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following: Sec. 616. Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response shall-- (1) review the damage survey reports and project worksheets relating to the damages and costs incurred by the University of North Dakota as a result of the April 1997 flooding in North Dakota, which is classified by Emergency Preparedness and Response as DR-1174-ND; and (2) submit a report on the efforts of the Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response to resolve any outstanding claims by the University of North Dakota relating to the reports described in paragraph (1) to--the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives.