Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

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.

Mr. COCHRAN. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator makes a point that certainly ought to be considered by the Senate, but it ought to be considered first by the Governmental Affairs Committee which has jurisdiction over the law that created the Department and the grant programs under which the Department administers the programs and distributes funds to the States. There was a per State minimum provided in the law that established the Department of Homeland Security. Just recently, the Committee on Governmental Affairs undertook a review of that basic law, and they reported out a bill, S. 1245. It deals with the issue of formulas under which funds are allocated to the States. As a matter of fact, it specifically provides for the continuation of the State minimum funding grant to each State based on population. But it also takes into account high threat areas, large State and large city problems that exist, and provides for special grants to be made to those areas of the country. We already have, for example, the high threat urban area classification, and funds are allocated to those States and those areas that are under higher threats or have higher vulnerability in addition to the funds they get on a per capita basis. My point in mentioning this and stating these facts is to say that this is not the time or the place for the Senate to deal with this issue. The time will be when this bill, S. 1245, is taken up by the Senate. It was just reported out of the committee on June 12, 2003. The distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, is chairman of that committee. She has indicated to me, with a note yesterday, that this bill had been reported out. So if any issue came up about formula grants and how funds were being distributed, it had already been considered by her committee and legislation had been reported on that subject. What the Senator from New York is asking us to do tonight, even though this is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, is to go on record saying the formulas under which the funds are being appropriated by this bill are inappropriately distributed. They are being distributed under the auspices of current law, and so she is asking us to disagree with the content of current law and suggests that some different distribution be made by this bill. We can't do that. We can't accommodate that. The time for changing the formulas and changing the way the distributions are made will be when the Senate turns to the consideration of this reported legislation. It is for those reasons and not to argue that there are needs in States that have cities such as New York City and others. New York City already gets way beyond what any other city gets because it is a high threat urban area. We have charts. Everybody can have access to see how much each State gets. The Senator has already pointed out how some States appear to get more per capita than the big States, and they do. But what happens is, this is made up for in other programs that provide funds to those high-threat urban areas, and it is dealt with in this other legislation. So it will be my intention to respond to any questions that I can answer. I wish the distinguished Senator from Maine were here because she knows more about the details than I do. But I will try to respond to any questions the Senator from New York has. Then it is my intention to move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

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.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, after discussing the plan for further consideration of this bill, we understand there are a few more amendments that are going to be offered. We have the expectation we can complete action tomorrow on this bill after we consider the amendments that remain to be offered. I know of no Senators who plan to offer amendments at this time to the bill. If there are any Senators who want to offer amendments, I am prepared to stay as long as Senators want to discuss their amendments. I await the pleasure of the Senate. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I would like to note for the record the following corrections to Senate Report 108-86 accompanying H.R. 2555 as reported by the Senate, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004. On page 5, line 3, the dollar amount should read ``$40,000,000.'' On page 47, the second paragraph, the description of local government should reflect that the Subcommittee amended the report to include ``borough.''

Mr. 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. COCHRAN. I agree with the senior Senator from West Virginia and the ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. the multi-state anti-terrorism information exchange program

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield all of the time available to me under the order.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. I do not have one yet.

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct an Executive Nominations hearing on Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 2:00 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Agenda Panel I: Senators. Panel II: Rene Alexander Acosta to be Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice and Daniel J. Bryant to be Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, United States Department of Justice.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Oversight Hearing: Law Enforcement and Terrorism'' on Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in the Hart Senate Office Building Room 216. Agenda The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Washington, DC; The Honorable Asa Hutchinson, Under Secretary for Border & Transportation Security, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC.

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