Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

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

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

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the comments that have been made by the distinguished Senators from Maryland and Connecticut about the Firefighters Assistance Grants Program. It certainly is a program that is very popular and it is a program that has been recognized as well run. It is a program that is managed by the firefighters themselves in determining which grants should be made in their regions, which items of equipment ought to be included in the arsenal of protection for communities. The only problem is, we don't have enough money in the allocation to this committee to make as much of an appropriation for many of these programs as we would like. We have to make choices. We had to allocate the total allocation among a large number of very worthwhile, very popular programs. I hate to put the Senate in the position of having to make choices here on the floor that we labored with for weeks and months, through hearings with administration witnesses, through discussions among our staffs and Members of the Senate, to try to identify the priorities and then come to some final decision about the exact amounts to include in the bill for all of these programs and activities. We have just so much money to appropriate. We kept the grant program for firefighter assistance at the same level as last fiscal year. In fact, we have included $200 million more than the President had requested in his budget which was submitted to the Congress. But this amendment would add funds that would cause the allocation to this subcommittee to be exceeded in violation of the Budget Act. As I have done with other amendments that have that same characteristic, I am constrained to make a point of order that the amendment violates the Budget Act. I make a point of order under subsection 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator has made some excellent points. He has pointed out, for example, the need for a review of the color-coded warning system. I am pleased to advise the Senator, it is my understanding that the Department is undertaking just such a review at this time. He makes some excellent suggestions about categories of warning or targeted areas of warning. That should be considered as well. I am willing to take this amendment to conference and urge, if we can convince our colleagues in the House, that there should be a provision in our conference report that encourages this kind of review and requires a report back to the Congress so we can know the status of it and what the expectations are of completing a review, giving us some of the details in a report so we can better understand the progress being made under such a review. That is why I did not ask for the yeas and nays because I am prepared to accept the amendment. I thank the Senator for offering this suggestion.

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

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

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.

Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield.

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

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

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

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

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. COCHRAN. I have yielded the floor.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I object.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, there has been much made about the suggestion from the Coast Guard that we should have over $1 billion available for port security activity. Let me point out that in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, several other agencies of the Department of Homeland Security, other than the Transportation Security Administration, have been provided funds that are to be used for port security activities. The Coast Guard itself has been provided up to $888 million in 2003, and it is provided $1.201 billion in this bill. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has been provided $170 million for increased personnel at maritime points of entry, and $33 million is available in this bill for all ports of entry, including seaports, for the container security initiative. All have been funded in a total amount, if we add it up over 2003 and 2004, of $3.29 billion available for the security of our Nation's ports. We are doing our best to allocate the funds to those agencies within the Department that can help us secure our maritime ports. I hope the Senate will agree with us, but it is now time for the Senate to work its will. I move to table the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Maine for her leadership as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee in helping shape the legislation that created this new Department and in monitoring its activities and keeping up with how they are going about managing their responsibilities. Legislation has already been reported out of that committee, for example, that deals with such issues as formulas for dividing money among agencies and sharing money with State and local governments. These are very important challenges the committee faces because they are the committee of jurisdiction of homeland security. We are just simply providing the funds and trying to allocate it within the terms of a budget resolution, trying to maintain an awareness of the importance of holding down the deficit, being responsible, making sure the funds we invest in these activities are used wisely and efficiently and effectively. We want them to really count. We want to be sure we are upgrading the quality of our capability of responding to national emergencies, manmade and natural disasters as well. It is a big challenge. There is no end to the list of ways we could spend more money in trying to do that. We are guided by the legal authorities laid out by the Committee on Governmental Affairs. We appreciate so much the guidance and leadership of the distinguished Senator from Maine in this effort. I commend her very much.

Mr. 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. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator and I thank the Senator from West Virginia as well. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, as I said when the amendment was proffered by the Senator from California, we were pleased that she had agreed to make some changes in the amendment and that we would accept the amendment if those changes were included. She asked for the yeas and nays on the amendment. I have further said that I thought the amendment was unnecessary and I don't know how the Secret Service is going to comply with the terms of the directive in the amendment. That is up to them. It seems to me they can make an effort to obtain the information sought by this amendment, which is the operating costs of the State and local law enforcement officials who are asked to cooperate with the Secret Service when they provide protection for visiting foreign government officials, or the President and his family, or for others whom they are obligated under the law to protect. They were worried that if they made this available in an unclassified form, it might put in jeopardy some of the very people they were trying to protect because they would disclose the steps they were taking to assure their protection. I am sympathetic with that observation. That is why we urged the Senator to make this a classified report. But it would be available to Senators. I have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN

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