Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the amendment offered by Senators Schumer and Baucus increases the funding available for personnel along the northern border by $200 million to meet a level of personnel authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act. This amendment is identical to the portion of the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, yesterday on which a point of order was made and the motion to waive failed. So the amendment was not agreed to. I will make the same statements I made yesterday but in a different way--it won't be exactly the same--to explain why the funding made available in the bill has gone a long way toward achieving the goal. In fact, before the end of this fiscal year of 2004, there will be the number of agents anticipated and contemplated by the USA PATRIOT Act, and they are funded in the legislation that is before the Senate now. Since fiscal year 2002, more than 5,000 additional inspectors, special acts, and Border Patrol agents have been funded by the Congress. The supplemental included $75 million for additional staffing for the northern border and maritime ports of entry. It also included $25 million to transfer 285 Border Patrol agents to the northern border. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection reports that over 4,000 inspectors have been added since September 11, 2001. Over 1,000 inspectors have been added to the northern border since 9/11; 613 Border Patrol agents are assigned to the northern border compared to 368 before September 11, 2001. Commissioner Bonner plans to have 1,000 agents on the northern border by October of this year. When the new agents funded in the bill are counted, there will be over 11,600 Border Patrol agents in fiscal year 2004. This bill includes the maximum number of new border agents that can be absorbed in 1 year. But for the purpose of our discussion on this specific amendment, I am constrained to point out that the amendment provides spending in excess of our allocation under the Budget Act and, therefore, I am constrained to make a point of order, and do hereby make a point of order, under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

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

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

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. 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. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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, 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, 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. Mr. President, I object.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina has raised an interesting question with the amendment that he has offered. He proposes to add $300 million for the Port Security Grant Program administered by the Transportation Security Administration and to take that money from another part of the bill-- $300 million from the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate. This is the Directorate that has the responsibility to conduct assessments of critical infrastructure to protect cyber-security in that structure, and to provide the ability to deal with the Threat Alert Advisory System. The total provided in the bill for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection would be reduced from $823.7 million to $523.7 million. I am advised that this would deal a severe blow to the Department of Homeland Security efforts to provide the assets needed to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure. Let me also observe that this was an amount that was included in the amendment we dealt with yesterday offered by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, although in the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia, he would have increased port security grants by $460 million. The amendment of the Senator from South Carolina proposes to increase it by only $300 million. But let me put in context what a substantial increase that is and what a difficult time the Transportation Security Administration would have in wisely and thoughtfully disbursing those grants to ports throughout the United States. Let me illustrate that by suggesting that we already have $100 million in the bill for next year's spending. But we already appropriated $365 million in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Of the $365 million already provided by Congress to the administration for these purposes, only $260 million has been obligated by the administration. So we have a proposal to add $300 million on top of an account where we have $105 million that is unobligated. How much we can spend is a question we can ask, but we must also ask how much we can spend wisely in a coherent and thoughtful way. If you are a port director out there and the word goes out that the Transportation Security Administration now has over $400 million to spend for these grants, you better get a grant application in. If you get it in quickly, you will probably get it approved whether you need it or not, or whether it is a good request or a thoughtful request. I am not suggesting anyone would send in something like that, but the whole point is if we create an atmosphere where there is a rush to Washington for the money and there is more money up there than they can spend and the word goes out across the country to that effect, we are not contributing to national security or to homeland security; we are contributing to the disarray that this agency would be in in trying to deal with the applications in a thoughtful and careful way. I am hopeful the Senate will look very carefully at this proposal. I suggest it should be rejected. I don't think we are going to measure the success of this bill with whether or not we spend as much as we possibly can but whether we have spent what we need to spend this next fiscal year. Of course, more money is going to be needed later. You can't do it all in 1 year. They haven't been able to spend the money we appropriated last year. Think about that. Now we are going to add $300 million more to a $150 million account. I just think this is piling money. It is going to create a big pile of money and maybe create a false impression of security. Appropriating the money is not going to improve our security. It is the things we do with the money and how it is spent according to a national plan. I am hopeful we can monitor as we go along how the administration is spending the money. It would be good to know from the Transportation Security Administration why they haven't been able to get the money out that we previously appropriated. What is the reason for that? It would be good for us to be able to describe that now. Maybe somebody from the Transportation Security Administration can call us and tell us why they haven't spent it. That may help us put this amendment in context. But I am hopeful we will help ensure before we appropriate an amount like this that the Transportation Security Administration is able to make the assessments and judge the quality of the grant applications that it receives to be sure the money is being disbursed where it needs to be disbursed as a matter of national security priority. I don't think we have the capacity in the Congress to decide the priorities among the different ports. Obviously, some port directors have suggested they need more money than they are getting--that the money that is available is not enough. I am sure the reason behind this amendment is the impression somebody created. But I am not sure we have the information available to us right now that is convincing enough to take $300 million away from infrastructure assessment and analysis and shift it from one Directorate to another Directorate. We may be undermining a very essential part of the effort of planning and assessing priorities and establishing priorities if we move $300 million from one account to the one suggested. I am not sure we can say or we have the evidence that we are now retargeting the money in a way that is consistent with our overall national plan. The administration says they don't want this amendment approved. They do not want the $300 million shifted in the way that the Senator from South Carolina suggests. I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. I am not the Secretary of Homeland Security. I don't spend all day every day working to discharge the responsibilities that Secretary Ridge has, that those who work with him have, and the heads of the Directorates who have been given the power and the responsibility to manage the authorized activities that we put into law when we created this new Department. We have a lot of other things to do. I am on five subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee. We have to deal with the Interior Department's funding. We have the Department of Agriculture. My friend from South Carolina has served as chairman of the State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee. There are a lot of other areas that you have to become familiar with and concentrate your attention on to discharge your own responsibilities as a member of this committee. The Homeland Security Subcommittee is just one of 14 different subcommittees that we have in the Appropriations Committee. The point I am making is that we have to give credit to the administration and those people who have been appointed by the President and selected by Secretary Ridge to help them carry out these responsibilities in developing a national plan, assigning priorities in submitting a budget request, and defending it in hearings before our committee. I think we have done a reasonably good job of trying to assess how we divide the money that has been allocated to our subcommittee. Everybody wants more money. There is no doubt about that. I haven't had a single request saying don't give us the amount of money we asked for in the budget resolution. The impression you get from everybody is that they could use more money. But how much more? Mr. President, $300 million is a lot more for this one agency, this one administration entity, the Transportation Security Administration, over and above what we put in the bill, and more than they have been able to spend in the last fiscal year. The fiscal year is almost up. We are well into the year 2003 and they have over $100 million they have not obligated. Let's give them $150 million for this next year. We will monitor carefully the use of those funds. We will monitor the needs that are submitted in the form of grant applications from around the country. We will ask them to give us a report as to why they are choosing some applications for approval and funding over others, what are the criteria. But to come in now and say, we know better than what they are doing, we know better than what they are suggesting, we know better than what the administration is asking for, to the tune of $300 million for this one agency, I think is too much, is going to hurt one agency to try to help another. And we just do not have the facts to support it. So with great reluctance, I urge the Senate to vote against this amendment. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. He is one of my best friends. I have admired him a long time. I know he has approached this in a thoughtful way, and it hurts me to say I just think he is wrong and I believe we ought to defeat the amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 22, at 10:00 a.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on issues related to forest health problems in our Nation's forests.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``The WorldCom Case: looking at Bankruptcy and Competition Issues'' on Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 2 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness List: Panel I: Richard Thornburgh, Esquire, Bankruptcy Examiner, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP, Washington, DC; Panel II: William Barr, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Verizon Communications, Washington, DC; Nicholas Katzenbach, Board Member, MCI Telecommunications, Ashburn, Virginia; Marcia L. Goldstein, Esquire, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, New York; Morton Bahr, President, Communications Workers of America, Washington, DC; Douglas G. Baird, Vice-Chair, National Bankruptcy Conference, Chicago, Illinois; Mark A. Neporent, Chief Operating Officer, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., New York, New York.

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

Mr. COCHRAN

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.

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. Facilities along the land borders, which the Senator discussed, are maintained under the General Services Administration, and funds for upgrading, maintaining, and replacing facilities are funded through the General Services Administration and the appropriations bill that has that as part of its jurisdiction. This committee does not have GSA jurisdiction. What we do have is the responsibility of trying to accommodate the deployment of facilities to implement the U.S. visitor and immigrant status indicator technology. This is a new program. It is to be deployed upon land ports of entry, and funds are included in the committee bill for that purpose. In addition, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has undertaken to hire additional inspectors to be deployed on these borders, to enforce the new rules and to better protect us from people who come across the border who may be a threat to the security of our homeland. Our indications from the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection are that over 4,000 inspectors have been added to the workforce since September 11, 2001. That has increased coverage at these ports of entry by 25 percent. Over 2,600 inspectors are on the northern border, compared to about 1,600 prior to September 11. There are 613 Border Patrol agents who are assigned to the northern border compared to 368 before September 11. Commissioner Bonner says he plans to have 1,000 agents on the northern border by October of this year. So when the new agents who are funded in this bill are counted, are included, there will be over 11,600 Border Patrol agents in fiscal year 2004. That is funding already in this bill. We added additional staffing in the wartime supplement. We put in the supplemental $75 million for additional northern border and maritime ports of entry personnel. This was in addition to the money that was previously appropriated for this fiscal year for new personnel. We also included $25 million to transfer Border Patrol agents to the northern border. It is an important new undertaking, and we are cooperating with the administration in trying to meet those needs. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection can only hire so many people in any one year. This bill includes the maximum number of new border agents who can be absorbed in one year. We also think it is important to preserve the Department's flexibility to assess its staffing needs nationwide. We should not come in and say they have to hire 1,000 more than they planned to hire this year. We have to leave to the good judgment of the administrators how they can absorb and find the qualified people to hire, how they can train them in their new duties and deploy them to the places where they can be used. I think it would be a mistake at this point for the Senate to try to superimpose our judgment about a detail of that kind. We have the same goal. We are on the same team with this administration. We have to listen to the statements and suggestions they make to us about the funds they can use and what they need to do their job within the limits that we have. We have to allocate the funds according to the priorities as we see them. Up to this point in time, it is the judgment of the committee at least that the funding we have made available for border security agencies, for personnel to carry out the missions of the USA PATRIOT Act, which the Senator mentioned, and other authorizing legislation is funded in the bill to the extent that it is possible to be funded in the bill. In the case of the Transportation Security Administration, the additional funding suggested in the amendment is $100 million for screening of air cargo. First, the authorizing committee assessed the needs for new authorities and how the responsibilities for screening air cargo would be changed to meet the new threats. Congress responded by passing the Air Cargo Security Improvement Act, S. 165. It authorizes the development and deployment of something called a known shipper database, strengthening security enforcement and compliance measures for indirect air carriers and implementing mandatory security programs for all cargo carriers. The Transportation Security Administration has undertaken a comprehensive, strategic plan for air cargo security. It is based on threat assessment and risk management. As I understand it, there are three elements to the approach of the Transportation Security Administration. They strengthen the current known shipper program to verify shipper legitimacy. They have developed a cargo prescreening and profiling system that targets shipments based on a set of guidelines to indicate which shipments may be suspicious. They have a targeted inspection system to identify suspicious cargo utilizing explosive detection systems, explosive trace detection, canine detection, and other approved methods for inspecting air cargo. This comprehensive approach is consistent with the Department's approach in securing containers that cross our borders by all modes of transportation, and the funding that was requested in the President's bill has been respected. The bill we have before the Senate provides $60 million. Ironically, it is $30 million more than the President requested for this function. The Transportation Security Administration, according to my understanding, can use this money. But this amendment that has been offered by the Senator from West Virginia would add an additional $100 million in addition to what is already in the bill. I am not sure the administration can use that and use it effectively. The amendment has additional money for grants for public transit agencies, for enhancing security against chemical and biological threats. We already have $71 million for the Science and Technology Directorate to develop and deploy chemical, biological, and nuclear sensor networks throughout the country, including public transit facilities. That would duplicate and be over and above what is already being spent to try to make sure that we deploy the right kind of defenses to this kind of threat. Again, I think it is important for us to work with the administration and say: Okay, we have so much money that has been allocated to us to spend for homeland security. How can we best spend that money right now? How much do they need this year? What can they use? What are the highest priorities? Where do we need to spend the money first? The amendment the Senator has offered also increases port security grants by $460 million, as he pointed out. We already have $150 million in the bill for port security grants, and this is in addition to $365 million provided in 2002 and 2003. Of the $365 million already provided by the Congress, only $260 million has been obligated by the administration. So think about this: We have a proposal to add $460 million to an account where the money is still there and has not been obligated that has previously been appropriated. How much can be spent is something that has to be taken into account as well, not how much we can appropriate. That is not going to be a measure of the success of this bill or whether or not it has been thoughtfully expended to protect our security. We have to make sure it can be used and that it can be used thoughtfully, consistent with a plan that has been developed by the administration. The Transportation Security Administration can only obligate about $150 million a year because assessments of ports have to be conducted, they have to be given some kind of priority, and then an application process by the ports for the funds has to be analyzed, assessed, and careful decisions need to be made. It cannot be just a rush to apply for a grant: Hey, they have a new fund in Washington. If you are a port director, if you get your application in now and put pressure on the administration, you may get some funds. Will it be consistent with the overall national plan? Will it be targeted where the threats are the most imminent and most troublesome, where the money really needs to be spent? Are other agencies going to be able to take up the slack in helping to deal with threats that are known to exist in our ports? There is a capacity only to spend so much money at one time. That is the point. The rush to spend money can put the agency in disarray, can give a false sense of security to the people in the country, saying, look, we spent $460 million in addition to what had already been appropriated. But that may not actually help improve our security. There is no doubt there will be a need for these funds later. There will be a need to increase security at our ports over and above what we are doing in this fiscal year or next fiscal year--and not just in ports but in all modes of transportation. But we need to take a measured, thoughtful approach, and weigh the funding provided for the security of our Nation's homeland security needs. That is what we tried to do, take a balanced approach and make an assessment based on limitations we have and the realities we face. There is a proposal in this amendment to add $70 million to the Coast Guard operating expenses account to increase the total funding of the Coast Guard. The bill already provides $4.719 billion for Coast Guard operating expenses. This is $12 million more than the President has asked for operating expenses, excluding environmental compliance and restoration, and reserve training, which are funded separately. Included in the bill for acquisition, construction, and improvements is the amount of $1.035 billion which is $238 million above the President's budget request. Funding to implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) was not requested in the President's budget because that Act had not been passed until after the President's budget was prepared. No request was made for funding to implement MTSA in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental either. We know funding for the implementation of the MTSA is a priority for the Coast Guard. If we had additional funds available, we would agree to increased funding in fiscal year 2004. But the bill has been very generous to the Coast Guard. We believe funding for the implementation of MTSA should be included in next year's budget request by the President. The Office for Domestic Preparedness is targeted in this amendment with a funding increase. Mr. President, $729.5 million is provided in this amendment to increase funding for grants to State and local governments. One of the first calls I made when I realized it was going to be my obligation to chair this subcommittee was to Warren Rudman, our former colleague from New Hampshire, who has been, with Gary Hart, part of a study to assess our homeland security needs. They had published reports and made some presentations in New York, Council on Foreign Relations, and other places. One of the things I remember former Senator Rudman suggesting to me is, it is impossible to know precisely what is needed and how much it will cost. That is something I have kept in mind. The fact is, this is not an exact science. We have to use our judgment, make choices, understand that we cannot do everything at once. What we are trying to do is maintain a base level of preparedness through this program. The Department is going to be better able to assess true needs once the States have had a chance to submit their updated homeland security strategies. We cannot just assume right now the States can identify all of the areas where they need to spend the money, which local governments continue to have needs, and which ones ought to be funded first. In my judgment, we run the risk of being irresponsible if we increase funding over and above an amount that can logically and systematically be provided through the grant program to State and local governments. We will have provided through the funds recommended in this bill almost $9 billion through the Office for Domestic Preparedness and the firefighters assistance grants since September 11. A lot of money has been spent already. In addition to those expenditures and the funding in this bill, the Senator suggests we ought to spend another $729.5 million. We are suggesting the funds appropriated in this bill, in this account, for this fiscal year, are a responsible level of funding for first responders, given the other needs and other demands that come under the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security. The amendment also suggests we earmark $80 million for information analysis and infrastructure assessment, a directorate, to conduct assessments for chemical facilities. I am impressed with the concerns reflected in this suggestion. We do not have funding made available to individual industries involved in the chemical business to make these assessments. I am not enough of an expert in that business to know the assessments that have already been made and the security arrangements that many of these businesses and industries already have. One thing we need to keep in mind is that self-interest has motivated business and industries, and anyone who owns a business or a home should do what they can to protect themselves, to be sure their workers are protected, to be sure their families are protected. We all feel that obligation. It is not like everyone has been assuming they had no responsibilities for self-protection. Businesses and industries have done a great deal, invested huge sums of money, to protect their own assets. The suggestion is we need to give them more money to do some more analysis, to do some more assessments. There may be a need for additional critical infrastructure assessment; however, this bill already provides $293.9 million for key asset identification, field assessments of critical infrastructures, and key asset protection implementation to help guide and support the development of protective measures to improve the security of industrial facilities and assets. Of the amount provided for critical infrastructures, $199.1 million is made available for critical infrastructure and vulnerability assessments of the highest priority infrastructures and assets. But we need the benefit of the advice of the administration, those who are in charge of the programs, to tell us what those are. This amendment that is offered by my friend from West Virginia says it is the chemical industry. That is the only earmark in this part of the bill--$80 million for chemical facilities. There may be other facilities that are more vulnerable or that would cause more damage and displacement of American businesses than the chemical facilities would if they were under a threat of terrorist attack. The priorities that have to be made and assigned have to be based on a combination of factors: threat, vulnerability, and risk analysis. And we have to leave that up to the administration. I don't feel competent to make that kind of decision. I don't know of any Senator, if this amendment were to be voted on this afternoon, who could just walk in here and decide should that be an earmark or should it not. But it is folded into this big amendment and we are asked to decide whether to target $80 million for just these kinds of facilities. Who is to know whether that is a good decision or not, if they have not been through the hearings, they have not had the opportunity to assess the other options? So I think it is an unfair choice that we present to other Senators, to have them make that decision right now. Why can't the administration make that decision? I think they are better suited to make that decision than we are right now. We have to work with them and not make prejudgments. The prioritization is going to be based on a lot of factors. There are 14 critical infrastructure areas--including the chemical sector--5 key asset categories that further break down into about 99 distinct segments, all of which must be considered based on changing threat assessments. So this is not necessarily an effective way to improve our Nation's security, just to earmark money for one particular kind of industry requiring a specific amount of funds to be spent. Why not $180 million? Why not just $40 million? Where does $80 million come from? I don't know. Who knows? So without the corresponding analysis that helps advise the Senate, it is a mistake for us to be asked to make this kind of choice. We are telling the terrorist organizations, aren't we, that we are going to spend the money in this sector? We are going to target this sector and emphasize it and make it a high priority, but not the others? Is that a good way to make decisions in this area or should we let the administration and the infrastructure protection experts decide where the threats really are? What does the intelligence show as to where the threats are? These need to be taken into account. This amendment, adding $1.75 billion to the bill, violates the Budget Act because it does not offset the spending, it exceeds the subcommittee's allocation that is given to us, and at the appropriate time I will be constrained to make a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are on the Homeland Security appropriations bill. We have two amendments pending for consideration. It is my understanding a briefing is being held right now and Senators are expected to be in the Chamber soon to either debate these amendments or make other comments about the bill. We encourage those who do have amendments to let us know about them. We have some indication that there are amendments that will be offered before we complete action on this bill, but we intend to push ahead and work as late tonight as the leader permits and complete action on this bill tomorrow, if possible. That is our intention. We hope to have the cooperation of all Senators. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN

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