Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we appreciate the advice and information that the distinguished Democratic whip has offered us. We do hope Senators will come now and call up amendments. In the expectation that will be the case, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we appreciate the Senator from Nevada bringing this issue to the attention of the Senate by offering this amendment. His amendment goes directly to the provision of the bill that provides funds for discretionary grants to high threat urban areas. In the bill, we provide an appropriation for this program of $750 million. These are discretionary grants to be made by the Office for Domestic Preparedness to those who are considered by the Department to be in need of these funds to better protect the security of these specific urban areas. This is a discretionary program, and we are hoping that by defining the criteria to be considered by the Department, we help encourage the selection of sites. But we don't pretend to make those decisions here in the Senate or in the Congress. These are administrative decisions. If we got into the business of deciding which areas of the country, specifically which urban areas of the country should be entitled to these funds, it would be a very unwieldy process. What we have done is to try to define the kinds of characteristics that should be taken into account by the administration as they make decisions in the awarding of these grants. Vulnerability is one of those criteria. I will read now from the committee report, page 48, where this grant program is described. It says: The Committee expects the [Office for Domestic Preparedness] to allocate these funds no later than 30 days after enactment of the act. No less than 80 percent of discretionary grants provided to any State shall be obligated to local governments within 45 days of the State's receipt of funds. In making grants to State and local governments, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take into consideration credible threat, vulnerability, population, cooperation of multiple jurisdictions in preparing domestic preparedness plans, and identified needs of public agencies. The grants may be made to single or multiple jurisdictions in the same urban area. It is our judgment that the inclusion of the word ``vulnerability'' and also the statement with regard to population gives the Secretary the discretion to consider popularity as a tourist destination to be a vulnerability or characteristic that is consistent with vulnerability. Large hotels, as the Senator from Nevada describes, are, of course, vulnerable. A transient population that is not acquainted with the area as a resident might be could make them more vulnerable to a terrorist act. And while obviously the Senator has a legitimate concern for these communities and wants to be sure they are considered when the Department divides this money among other municipalities and local government agencies around the country, we think it is provided for already in the bill. More importantly, to go back to the statement I made at the outset of my response to the Senator, we don't need to get into the business of trying to convert this discretionary program into one where the Congress, by massaging the language and putting in additional criteria, ends up taking the discretion away or limiting the discretion that ought to be exercised by the Department. Many characteristics are going to be considered, but we hope we won't try to tie the hands of the administrator so tightly that this program loses its significance. High threat urban areas, we recognize, are entitled to Federal support in managing the threats to those communities, and it may cost more than States or local jurisdictions can manage to more fully and successfully protect the security interests of people in those areas. I am hopeful the Senate will reject the amendment. Specifically, the amendment is an add-on of $20 million without any offset. So it is subject to a point of order and would have to overcome that point of order. The Senate could waive the point of order, could approve a motion to waive, but that would be one way to join issue with this. I think our discussion here--the Senator's comments and the response I have made--can be interpreted as a colloquy that clarifies the authority the Secretary has to give consideration to the special vulnerability of cities and other localities that have a high degree of tourist population. He specifically mentioned Las Vegas. I am thinking specifically, too, about the gulf coast of Mississippi where we have a large number of tourists who come visit the resort areas and the tourists hotels, other attractions along the Mississippi gulf coast. That area might very well also qualify for consideration as a vulnerable area for funding under this provision. I think the Senator points out something the Secretary and the Office for Domestic Preparedness specifically ought to consider as they make these grants to so-called high-threat urban areas. These are discretionary, but we think the criteria we have listed and described in the committee report and in the colloquy we have had on this amendment the Senator offered will help guide the Department in making these grants and enable them to fully consider the vulnerability of areas with high density or high levels of tourist population. We think that would be appropriate.

Mr. COCHRAN. Seven hundred and fifty million dollars.

Mr. COCHRAN. Yes.

Mr. COCHRAN. I have no objection to that and so modify my request in that way.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, yesterday when we presented this bill for consideration, we had opening statements describing the content of the legislation. It is the first appropriations bill that will provide funding for the new Department of Homeland Security. It provides funding in the amount of $29.326 billion for this new Department. It is a billion dollars over the President's budget request but consistent with the allocation under the budget resolution to this subcommittee. The additional funds are used primarily for training enforcement personnel and developing new equipment and technologies that can be utilized to better protect our homeland. State and local governments will get grants from the Department to help upgrade their capabilities in this area, not just against the war against terror and defeating terrorism but in dealing with natural disasters as well. The 22 agencies that previously existed that have responsibilities in this area have been folded into one organization under this new Department headed up by Secretary Tom Ridge. We are hopeful we can complete action on this bill by Wednesday evening, and we will be able, then, to start working to iron out differences between the House and Senate bills so when we come back from the break in August we can pass this bill and do our part to contribute to the timely consideration of all appropriations bills in time for the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1. We have asked Senators to let us know what amendments they intend to offer. We hope we can handle these amendments expeditiously. There was one amendment laid down yesterday by Senator Byrd that would add over a billion dollars to different accounts in the bill. We can take that amendment up. I am advised that Senator Byrd will be coming to discuss that amendment and other issues that are involved in this legislation later in the day. Until that amendment can be disposed of, we have an opportunity for other amendments to be called up. We can set aside the Byrd amendment and consider other amendments if it is agreed to. I looked at the list. There are 29 amendments that we know about. Most of them are being offered by Senators on the Democratic side of the aisle. We hope we can have the cooperation of all Senators to expeditiously consider the legislation and not drag out the consideration of amendments. I thank my friend, the Senator from Nevada, for working with us to look at ways to expedite the consideration of this bill. I appreciate his assistance, advice, and counsel in this process.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished Senator from Nevada. We will continue to work with him to be sure that we take into account the observations he has made, and the urban areas in his State will be dealt with fairly by the Office for Domestic Preparedness in the consideration of the allocation of grants from this fund. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 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. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business during which Senators may speak for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to present for the Senate's consideration today the fiscal year 2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. This bill provides appropriations for the first time directly to the new Department of Homeland Security which was created by law last November. The September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon here in Washington dramatically illustrated the need for more effective protection of our homeland. On March 1 of this year, this new Department of Homeland Security was formally established. Its mission is to reorganize the Federal Government's efforts to prevent terrorist attacks, to reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism, and to deal more effectively with the damages that are caused by natural disasters as well. The Department has administrative control over and responsibility for 22 previously existing Federal agencies and an estimated 180,000 employees. The bill we present today provides total new budget authority for fiscal year 2004 of $29.326 billion to fund the Department. In addition, an estimated $4.8 billion in collections from immigration services and from air passenger and carrier fees paid by the users will be available to the Department for fiscal year 2004. This bill is $1 billion over the President's budget request. The bill recommends that this additional amount of money be used to increase funding to assist State and local first responders, to enhance aviation security, to better protect critical infrastructures, to more effectively secure our ports and waterways, to hire and train additional border investigators and inspectors, and to establish the surveillance capability to protect our northern border. As the Presiding Officer well knows, this is a big country. You cannot possibly build a wall around it. We have over 95,000 miles of coastline. The northern border of our country stretches a distance of 5,500 miles. Our southern border with Mexico is approximately 2,000 miles in length, all present very real and very important challenges to the security protection effort of our homeland. For fiscal year 2003, and with the additional appropriations recommended by this bill for fiscal year 2004, Congress will have provided over $3 billion for the security of our Nation's ports and waterways and over $10 billion for security of all sectors of transportation through the Transportation Security Administration. Through the firefighter assistance and Office of Domestic Preparedness grant programs alone, the Congress will have provided almost $9 billion since September 11, 2001, to enhance the capacity of the Nation's first responders. To further explain part of the uses that are expected by the committee for these funds, I invite the attention of the Senate to page 9 of the committee's report that we have submitted to accompany this bill. It says, ``Pursuant to the President's National Strategy for Homeland Security, the Secretary is to provide to the Committee, no later than April 30, 2004, a report that updates the progress that is made to: clearly define standards and guidelines for Federal, State, and local government emergency preparedness and response in such areas as training, interoperable communications systems, and response equipment; an estimate of the costs of the unmet needs of State and local governments for fiscal years 2004--2008 in meeting those standards and guidelines.'' This illustrates the fact that, first of all, we know you cannot transform our country's homeland security infrastructure overnight; it is going to take time. This bill marks the beginning of the effort and a response to the President's call for the strengthening of our homeland security capability through the establishment of a new Department, which was undertaken by Congress through its legislative committees that actually wrote the law that provided the legal authority for this new Department to begin its work. This bill provides the money the Department needs. It is not all the money that can be spent. It is not all the money that everybody suggests is needed. But it is a very important and generous investment in the effort to begin the work that has to be done to reach the goals we all share. As the Committee report suggests it is going to take a while, too, for local governments and local responders to upgrade their capabilities, through training, through exercises, through new state- of-the-art equipment and communications equipment, and other assets that are necessary to fully reach our goals. Working together with a better sense of cooperation between State, local, and Federal Government agencies, I am confident that we are going to see a dramatic improvement made. This is another positive step forward. I am hopeful that Senators will appreciate the fact that we want to hear their advice. We had hearings where we not only heard other Senators' suggestions about steps that ought to be taken and the dollar amount of funds that ought to be appropriated, but we also heard from administration officials whose job it is to manage this new Department. We had a series of six hearings on these subjects. The Homeland Security Act established four new directorates under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security and its Secretary. Agencies were reorganized, such as the Customs Service. Some disappeared, such as the Immigration and Naturalization Service. However, the components and activities of that previous agency are included under the control and authority of the new Department in a way that we hope will make it a more effective organization and those agencies better able to do their job. But the challenges are quite enormous, as we all recognize. There have been, in the course of our hearings, discoveries made of the challenges, in terms of how many people there are to keep up with who are undocumented aliens within the United States, for example. That number has increased from 3 million in 1990 to an estimated 9 million now. Forty percent of those people originally gained entry into the United States legally, but they never left when either the time expired for their visa or the end of the legal authority of their presence came about. Attempting to identify and track those people, some of whom may be threats to our security and many of whom may not be threats to our national security, illustrates the challenges we face. We are embracing in this bill the development of new technologies to help us identify, through automation and new technologies, friendly vessels that come close to our shores, that enter our ports, in a way that you can automatically know whether this ship is certified and licensed to enter that port or not. The Coast Guard is included as a complete entity within the new Department of Homeland Security and is taking on new roles. So we have our challenge from the President to support these efforts. I think Congress is responding, as it should, with a generous bill for appropriations of funds needed to start this Department off on its way. We will continue to monitor the use of these funds, as we suggested in the report. We are going to require to be kept advised of the progress made to achieve the goals. We will have oversight hearings. If we see there are needs that arise that have not been funded, we will bring those to the attention of the Senate. Working with our friends in the House, we will go to conference with the House upon the passage of this bill and work out the differences between our two bills and present the final result to the President for his signature. I am hopeful that the Senate will support this bill. I am confident it will help achieve our goal of a strengthened and much-improved homeland defense against terrorism and natural disasters, as well. Before I yield the floor, I would like to point out that I certainly appreciate and acknowledge the good assistance of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, who is the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee and who serves as the ranking Democrat of this subcommittee, for his cooperation and support during the committee's consideration and development of this bill. The following is a detailed summary of the bill's major funding recommendations. For security, enforcement, and investigations activities of the Department funded under Title III of the bill, $19.5 billion is recommended. Included in this amount is a total of $8.1 billion for the Department's two new bureaus--the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Also recommended is $5.4 billion for the Transportation Security Administration; $6.8 billion for the Coast Guard; and $1.1 billion for the United States Secret Service. For assessments, preparedness, and recovery activities of the Department funded under Title IV of the bill, $8.3 billion is recommended. This includes $3.6 billion for emergency preparedness and response activities; $823 million for the Department's new Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate; $201 million for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; and $3.6 billion for the Office for Domestic Preparedness. In addition, the bill recommends $494 million for Departmental operations and oversight; $229 million for the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services; and $866 million for research and development activities of the Department's Science and Technology Directorate. The bill recommends $8.1 billion for the defense of the nation's borders and investigations and enforcement of our immigration and customs laws. Included in this amount is an increase to establish the first permanent northern border surveillance air wing. The bill also provides $380 million for the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology project, known as US VISIT. This automated entry/exit system is one of the Department's top priorities. It will track the entry and exit of all non-immigrant travelers, making it easier for legitimate travelers while making it more difficult for those who may intend to do us harm. The bill recommends $4.9 billion for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, which supports inspection activities and patrolling of our borders. As I previously stated, the United States has 5,525 miles of border with Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Our maritime border includes 95,000 miles of shoreline. Each year, more than 500 million people cross the border into the United States, some 330 million who are non- citizens. There are 118,129,875 vehicles that enter the United States annually and 16 million cargo containers. To assist the Bureau in its task to protect our border, the bill provides an increase of $74.3 million for additional personnel, $41 million of which is for 570 additional border agents. In addition, the bill provides full funding of $12.1 million for the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. A safe and secure supply chain is a critical part of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection's work to keep our country safe. Through this initiative, the Bureau is committed to working closely with companies whose good business practices ensure supply chain security as well as compliance with trade laws. It also provides the requested increase of $61.7 million for the Container Security Initiative. This initiative seeks to enhance the security of an indispensable, but vulnerable, link in the chain of global trade: the oceangoing shipping container. Proactively screening containers before they reach the United States will significantly contribute to efforts to secure the borders against dangers that might be introduced through commercial traffic. A more secure maritime trade infrastructure will help ensure the continued smooth flow of merchandise through seaports. The bill recommends $2.8 billion for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which supports investigations, intelligence, detention and removal activities, and provides a safe and secure work environment for Federal facilities. To assist the Bureau in carrying out these tasks, the bill provides an increase of $28.3 million for additional investigative and intelligence personnel. The bill provides an increase of $66.2 million for the establishment of the first permanent air surveillance wing on the northern border. The Nation is vulnerable to illegal incursions by terrorists, drug smugglers and other criminals. The establishment of this air wing will allow the Department to extend its reach to an at-risk area of the Nation's airspace. The bill also provides a transfer of $424 million from the General Services Administration, Federal Buildings Fund, for the Federal Protective Service, which is the same as the President's budget, to ensure a safe and secure workplace for Federal employees. For the Transportation Security Administration, responsible for ensuring security across the U.S. transportation system, including our Nation's airports, railways, highways, and waterways, the bill recommends total funding of $5.4 billion. For security enhancements to our Nation's aviation sector, an increase of $307 million over the President's budget request has been provided. A major component of this increase is $150.5 million for the purchase of baggage explosive detection systems and $309 million to make security improvements at our Nation's airports, including the permanent installation of these detection systems in the airport to move them out of airport lobbies. In addition, the bill provides funding at the President's requested level for passenger and baggage screeners at airports. Also provided for the security of aviation is $600 million for the Federal Air Marshals program, and $25 million for Federal flight deck officer training for commercial pilots who voluntarily apply to carry firearms in the cockpit. To further enhance TSA efforts to secure cargo placed on aircraft, $30 million is provided for the screening of air cargo. For maritime and surface transportation security activities, the bill provides $150 million for port security grants, $30 million for the continuation of operation safe commerce to better secure cargo entering the Nation's three largest ports, and $25 million for trucking industry grants to provide for safe travel on our Nation's highways. To further improve transportation security, $130.2 million is provided for research and development of the latest technologies to detect and deter terrorist attacks, including $45 million for research and development of next generation explosive detection systems and $30 million for research and development of new technologies to screen air cargo. The bill recommends $6.88 billion in total funding for the United States Coast Guard, which supports the President's request for search and rescue activities, fisheries enforcement, drug interdiction, and defense-related activities. Included in this amount are increases for the Integrated Deepwater Systems, ``Deepwater'', Maritime Safety and Security Teams, and the Automatic Identification System. The bill provides $702 million for the Deepwater program, which is $202 million above the President's budget. Deepwater missions cover the spectrum of the Coast Guard's responsibilities, including: homeland security, search and rescue, alien migrant interdiction, drug interdiction, fisheries protection, and marine environmental protection. Deepwater was conceptualized as a 20-year program at a cost of $500 million a year, to recapitalize the Coast Guard's aging assets and fully integrate the communications capability of all ships and aircraft. In order for Deepwater to be completed in 20 years, the annual funding would have to include inflation, which has not been the case. If the recent pattern of under-funding continues, the projected time-frame for completion could increase to 30 years, thereby increasing the total cost to the government. Fiscal year 2004 funding of $702 million will go a long way toward getting Deepwater back on schedule for completion in 20 years. The bill provides $134 million for the Rescue 21 program, which is the same as the President's budget. Rescue 21 is effectively the maritime 9-1-1 system for mariners in distress, designed to monitor distress calls, alert response assets, and coordinate search and rescue responses. This funding will improve the Coast Guard's effectiveness and enhance mission delivery of marine safety, law enforcement, environmental protection, and homeland security. The bill provides an increase of $40 million for the Automatic Identification System, which is similar to an air traffic control system that transmits important safety and security information concerning vessels back to a shore-based receiver. This provides the Coast Guard with the capability to track vessels throughout the coastal zone and provide greater security to the Nation's ports. To further strengthen the capacity of the Nation's first responders to prepare for and respond to possible terrorist threats, the bill provides $3.638 billion for the Office for Domestic Preparedness. Included in this amount is $1.2 billion for State and local basic formula grants; $500 million for State and local law enforcement terrorism prevention grants; and $750 million for high-threat urban area discretionary grants. The bill also provides $750 million for firefighter assistance grants, to remain as a stand-alone program. The bill does not recommend the consolidation of funding for emergency management performance grants into the Office for Domestic Preparedness grant programs, as proposed in the budget. An appropriation of $165 million for this grant program is provided through the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate. The bill recommends $3.6 billion in total funding for the operations of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, fully supporting the fiscal year 2004 budget for preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery activities; public health programs, to include the Strategic National Stockpile; and information technology services and regional operations. The bill provides $1.9 billion for disaster relief as proposed in the President's budget. The disaster relief fund through the Department of Homeland Security will continue to operate the programs formerly run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to assist victims in presidentially-declared major disasters and emergencies. The bill provides $200 million for flood map modernization activities to modernize and digitize the Nation's flood maps. These maps are outdated and in some cases not permanently documented, as the digitization process would provide. Fiscal year 2004 funding will ensure that the Department stays on track to provide up-to-date flood maps for the Nation within 5 years. The bill continues the Emergency Management Performance Grants, ``EMPG'', at $165 million, and does not recommend shifting this program to the Office for Domestic Preparedness. EMPG is a State matching grant program designed to assist States and local communities in all-hazards planning and response, and is therefore more appropriately administered through the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate. In Mississippi, the number of counties with emergency management programs has increased from 43 to 65 in the last three years because of funds made available through EMPG. The same is true for numerous other States, indicating the importance of this program to provide communities with the capability to develop localized emergency management programs. The bill recommends $823.7 million for activities of the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection directorate to identify and assess threats to the homeland, map threat information against current vulnerabilities, issue warnings, and take preventive and protective action. A critical component of this directorate is the ability to provide the resources to secure our Nation's critical infrastructures from catastrophic events. In order to achieve this, $293.9 million is provided for critical infrastructure and key asset identification, field assessments of critical infrastructures, and key asset protection implementation to help guide development of protective measures to harden facilities and assets. For the intelligence and warning functions of the Department of Homeland Security, $101.7 million is provided to guide collection, assessment, evaluation, and prioritization of all intelligence information. As part of the effort by IAIP to better secure not only physical assets but also cyber assets, the bill includes $98.5 million for the integration of physical and cyber infrastructure monitoring and coordination for cyber security. A total of $866 million is recommended for the research and development activities of the Department's Science and Technology Directorate. This directorate is tasked with the centralization of research and development department-wide and is provided $64 million in support of conventional missions of the Department's agencies and bureaus. The bill also provides $55 million for the establishment of a university-based system to enhance and strengthen the efforts of homeland security on our Nation's campuses. As the Department works to monitor and detect cyber attacks by terrorist organizations within the auspices of the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection directorate, Science and Technology is responsible for the research and development of the most appropriate technologies for next generation cyber threat characterization, detection, and origination. For these activities, the bill provides $18 million. A total of $70 million is made available for the technical support working group responsible for the rapid development and prototyping of new technologies in support of homeland security. For research and development of critical infrastructure security assurance, $72 million is provided, of which up to $60 million is made available for research, development, testing, and evaluation of an anti-missile system for commercial aircraft. There also is a great need for the development of standards and protocols for equipment that is used in the field for detecting, mitigating, and recovering from terrorist attacks and funds are available for this purpose. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this amendment is redundant and unnecessary. It, in effect, requires a report to committees of Congress every 30 days by the administration on operations in Iraq. The supplemental that the Congress passed in April just before the Easter recess providing fiscal year 2003 funds for the Iraqi operations required that many reports be submitted to committees of Congress. As a matter of fact, within 5 days of the transfer of funds from the Iraqi Freedom account, a report is sent to the Appropriations and Defense Committees of the House and Senate advising the Congress of how these funds are going to be spent. No such reporting has been required of recent operations elsewhere in the world. For example, during the Clinton administration, no such reports were required for operations in Somalia or Bosnia or Haiti. Nor were they required during the operations in Afghanistan or Kosovo. This report duplicates information the Department of Defense is already routinely providing through congressional hearings and briefings for Members of Congress and press organizations, news organizations that have access to the regular briefings at the Department of Defense. The reports on the cost of Iraq and the number of personnel serving in the region are widely available. We all know that representatives of news organizations are all over Iraq gathering information, making reports every day on television through their news organizations back to the United States and around the world. There are no secrets. There were members of the press involved and personally present during all of the military operations and, to a great extent, Ambassador Bremer and General Abizaid still make information available to those representatives of news organizations who are seeking information about what is going on in Iraq. We all have access that is unparalleled and truly unlimited. The Senator complains that this should be required as a matter of statute, that we ought to have an enactment of law that makes the administration provide these reports. But if we look at the supplemental the Congress adopted just before the Easter recess, that has already been done. This is redundant. It is unnecessary. The Senator read from her amendment to tell us exactly what is in it. We have already provided for reports, and I am going to read it so everybody will know what we have already ordered the administration to do by law: Not later than 45 days after date of enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations a report on the United States strategy regarding activities related to post-conflict security, humanitarian assistance, governance, and reconstruction in Iraq that are undertaken as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The report shall include the following: (1) The distribution of duties and responsibilities regarding such activities among agencies of the United States Government, including the Department of State, the United States Agency for International Development, and the Department of Defense (to be provided within 30 days within enactment of this Act) (2) A detailed plan describing the roles and responsibilities of foreign governments and international organizations, including the United Nations, in carrying out activities related to post-conflict security, humanitarian assistance, governance, and reconstruction in Iraq. (3) A strategy for coordinating such activities among the United States Government, foreign governments and international organizations, including the United Nations. (4) An initial estimate of the costs expected to be associated with such activities. (5) A strategy for distributing the responsibility for paying costs associated with reconstruction activities in Iraq among the United States, foreign governments, and international organizations, including the United Nations, and an estimate of the revenue expected to be generated by Iraqi oil production that could be used to pay such costs. (b) Subsequent Reports.--Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter until September 30, 2004, the President shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations a report that contains: (1) A list of significant United States Government-funded activities related to reconstruction in Iraq that, during the 90-day period ending 15 days prior to the date the report is submitted to the Committees on Appropriations-- (A) were initiated; or (B) were completed. (2) A list of the significant activities related to reconstruction in Iraq that the President anticipates initiating during the 90-day period beginning on the date the report is submitted to the Committees on Appropriations, including: (A) Cost estimates for carrying out the proposed activities. (B) The source of the funds that will be used to pay such costs. (C) Updated strategies, if changes are proposed regarding matters included in the reports required under subsection (a). (4) An updated list of the financial pledges and contributions made by foreign governments or international organizations to fund activities related to humanitarian, governance, and reconstruction assistance in Iraq. Madam President, we would be hard pressed to require anything further that the Congress ought to know about the expenditure of funds in carrying out the operations of the activities described in this supplemental appropriations bill. This bill we are considering enacting now in the Senate applies to appropriations that will be available beginning in the next fiscal year, fiscal year 2004. Reports are required by law now. They will continue to be required and be available to Members of Congress on whatever committee one serves--the Foreign Relations Committee, the Defense Committees, the Appropriations Committees, and any others. We can read every day about the witnesses who are called before the Congress and questions are asked about what is going on in Iraq. We are entitled to that information. So it is not that I rise to oppose this amendment because we are not entitled to the information the Senator suggests we ought to have, but that we already have it and it is already required to be given to the Congress routinely, and it is made available under provisions of law that have already been enacted. Therefore, if you hired all the accountants and bookkeepers who would be required to fill in all the forms and submit all the documents that Senator Boxer requires, I suggest we should consider renaming her amendment. It should be the Bookkeepers and Accountants Civil Relief Act of 2003. That is my suggestion. I hope the Senate will table the amendment, and it will be the intention of this Senator, when everybody has had an opportunity to talk about the amendment who wants to talk about the amendment, to move to table the amendment of the Senator from California.

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to table the Boxer amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask consent that at 3:15 today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment No. 1271, to be immediately followed by a vote in relation to the Daschle amendment No. 1269, with no second-degree amendments in order to either amendment prior to the votes; provided further that there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form between the votes.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Mr. Bryan Jones of Yazoo City, MS, for his distinguished service as president of Delta Council. Delta Council is an area development organization representing the 18 Delta and part-Delta counties of Northwest Mississippi. Delta council was organized in 1935 to bring together the agricultural, business, and professional leadership of the region to confront the major problems facing the region at that time. Since then, the organization has expanded its role, under leaders like Bryan Jones, to include educational policy, water resource conversation, highway development, agricultural research, and flood control. As president of Delta Council, Bryan Jones has served very effectively as a Delta leader during stressful economic times. He has used sound judgment and contributed to meaningful improvements in the quality of life in the region. Bryan has led the Delta Council into new fields of endeavor such as health care and adult literacy. He has supported innovative land and water conservation programs. He has been a strong advocate for water resource developments that include improved environmental restoration. And, he has become well known throughout the region and among members of the Mississippi Congressional Delegation as an effective spokesperson on behalf of the Delta's largest industry, agriculture. After graduating from the University of Mississippi, Bryan Jones could have been placed in a senior executive position in almost any company located anywhere in the United States. However, because of his love for the Mississippi Delta, Bryan returned to the Delta region and his community to build a $1 billion statewide banking system. In addition to serving as the Chief Executive Officer of the Delta Division of BankPlus, Bryan operates a cotton, soybean, corn, and wheat farm in Holmes and Humphreys Counties. Bryan is a member of the Second Presbyterian Church in Yazoo City and he and his wife, Sara, have three children. He is an enthusiastic outdoors man and a director of Delta Wildlife, which is a leading advocate for the enhancement of the Mississippi Delta's rich wildlife resources. I am pleased to congratulate Bryan Jones for his contributions to the Mississippi Delta and the Nation, and I look forward to working with him and other Delta Council leaders in the future who share our goal of improving the quality of life for the people of this area.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, we are deeply saddened by the death of our former colleague, Strom Thurmond. He was a beloved friend, always gracious, and affectionate. His service in the Senate was distinctive not only because he served so many years but because of his love for his job and his dedication to serving the interests of the people of South Carolina. He was determined to make his influence felt in the committees and on the floor. He took an active part in the debates even on the most controversial issues. His 24 hour speech on the Civil Rights Act was a record-setting event. He also was a fervent and effective supporter of our military forces and the veterans who had risked their lives in military service to our Nation. I will always count it as one of my richest blessings that I got to know Strom Thurmond and the members of his family. My hope is that Nancy and their children will be comforted by the warmth and sincerity of the esteem and affection in which the Thurmond family will always be held by their many close friends in the Senate family.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am concerned about an unfair tax on coal companies and other businesses which is sometimes referred to as the ``reach-back tax.'' It was enacted as part of the Coal Act in the 1992 Energy bill. The Coal Act requires companies to pay a tax on the retirement benefits of miners. The tax applies not only to companies active in the coal mining business but also to companies that are no longer in the coal mining business. There is one company in the State of Washington that has not employed any miners since the 1950s and is still obligated to pay. Another company that is subject to the tax is the Mississippi Lignite Mining Company, which operates a powerplant at Red Hills near Ackerman, MS. It is time for the Congress to repeal this unfair tax. If we do not act soon, the combined benefit fund, which provides the money for the retirement benefits, will be bankrupt. I understand that the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Grassley, and the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith, have asked the House Ways and Means Committee to send a bill to the Senate to resolve this issue. I join them in this request and hope the Finance Committee will act with favor on such a bill when it comes over from the House.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on June 26, 2003 in SR-328A at 9 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to review H.R. 1904, The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry will hold a full committee hearing on Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 9 a.m., in SR-328A, Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to review H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. Witnesses to be announced at a later date.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, even though we adopted the Cochran amendment by voice vote, which requires certification that drugs imported through Canada are safe, and that they significantly reduce costs to American consumers, if the Dorgan amendment passes, it creates a new opportunity, a new source for importation of drugs into our country from other countries besides Canada. There are manufacturing facilities right now in India, in France, and in China, where drugs are being manufactured to look like American drugs that have been approved in this market but are counterfeit drugs. Some are truly unsafe because of the unsanitary conditions under which they are manufactured. Some do not contain anything like the ingredients the labels say they contain. Mr. President, this is a new threat to the security and safety of American citizens. We don't have the Food and Drug Administration inspectors, U.S. Postal Service inspectors, or the U.S. Customs Service agents to monitor the new importation that will flood into this country from Canada--but not necessarily manufactured in Canada, not necessarily manufactured in the U.S. and sold in Canada and reimported, which is the purpose of this amendment. But it opens a new door, a new opportunity, and it is a new threat to the security of the people of this country. I urge that we vote no on the Dorgan amendment. I yield time to the Senator from Pennsylvania.