Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I hope the distinguished Senator from New Jersey will reserve the word ``tirade'' with reference to me. I might have a tirade sometime on the floor. I have not so far. And it will not be because of an amendment like this. But I call the Senate's attention to pages 58 and 59 in the committee report. I will state to the Senator from New York that he is in error. The .7 applies to the basic grants; it does not apply to this program at all. The .7 does not apply to this concept we are talking about now, nor the money to which he is referring. If you look at page 58, it shows the committee recommendations for the information analysis and infrastructure protection system. It is a national system. I call your attention to page 59: The General Accounting Office has reported that chemical facilities present an attractive target for terrorist activity. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it would cost $80,000,000 over 5 years for vulnerability assessments at nearly 15,000 chemical facilities across the United States. Therefore, the Committee [is directing this money to be spent for that.] We make a direct request for a report on the matter. The systems we are dealing with here are systems that deal with the Nation. But, in particular, it is: . . . the creation of the National Cyber Security Division within Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection and recommends $32,800,000 for the integration of physical and cyber infrastructure monitoring and coordination from the funds made available for information and warning advisories, and $65,700,000 for cyberspace security from the funds made available for remediation and protective actions. We expect to move into this whole concept of critical infrastructure protection. That needs: . . . key asset identification, field assessments of critical infrastructures, and key asset protection implementation to help guide the development of protective measures to harden facilities and assets. It is a national program from which this money is being taken. The inference here is this is surplus money. This is not enough. We don't have enough for this system. We don't have enough money for what the Senators from Pennsylvania and New York want. But the point is, some of this protection starts at home. Some of it starts at home. Some basic concept of protection is the responsibility of every government in the United States. But the one responsibility we have here is the national system of identification of those facilities and assets that are critical, and also the establishment of a national alert system. This money is not enough for either one. But the Senators from New York and Pennsylvania want to take $250 million from a fund that is already insufficient, based upon the General Accounting Office report. I do hope Senators will take a look at how this money is allocated: Intelligence and Warning: Threat determination and assessment, Information and warning advisories, Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets: Infrastructure vulnerability and risk assessment, Remediation and protective actions, National Communication System. That gets the bulk of it, the national communication system, finding some way to put an alert system back in place that will notify everybody if there is a national disaster. That does not exist any longer. It did, back in the days, as I said, when we all relied on radio. That got tested once a week, in fact, or once a month--whatever it was. But how long has it been since you had a test on a system? There is no test possible coming through cell phones, through computers, through the cable systems, through the satellite systems. They are not coordinated at all. We need a national system of alert and this is going to go toward that, starting it up. The bulk of the money that they are taking is in protecting critical infrastructure and key assets. That is where $95 million is for the infrastructure vulnerability and risk assessment; $383.9 million for remediation for protective actions nationally. This is protecting the ports of New Jersey, of New York, of California, Florida, and even Alaska. But identifying the need for protection. Why take that money out when we are just setting up the Department of Homeland Security and this is the basic money we need now? We need it now. The Senators from New York and Pennsylvania want money to be there in case they need it if there is another national alert. There may not be one. But there is a need for this. The General Accounting Office insists the No. 1 responsibility of Congress is to deal with the vulnerability assessments of 15,000 chemical facilities and other similar assets around the country. Chemical facilities in particular, and the costs associated with protecting those chemical facilities, are essential to this homeland security. I urge the Senate not to take this action. It will also go into the Science and Technology Directorate, taking money from the research and development capabilities of the entire Department of Homeland Security. The reduction would severely limit the university-based centers program. As I said before, nearly every Senator has made a request. I have the list here, by the way. Here it is. These pages, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5--6 pages, single spaced, from Senators addressing this one particular account. Senators, if you ask for this money and you expect to get it--we have not earmarked any money; isn't that correct?

Mr. STEVENS. There is no money earmarked. But money, as much as we could possibly put, is in the discretionary fund--and I think almost every Senator has asked for money in this area: Vulnerability protection, disaster assistance programs, homeland security initiative at the University of Washington, University of Nebraska. Maybe I should read them all, when we look at it: College of William and Mary, George Mason, VMI, Utah, LSU, Wichita, Montana State, Colorado, University of Delaware, Brown University, University of Rhode Island, University of Georgia, University of New York, SUNI Maritime College. I could go on and on. Almost every college that has a capability of being involved in this assessment and determination of how to protect these facilities has asked to get involved. We could not do that. So we set up a fund and the Department will determine how many of these universities can lock together and give us the assessment that the General Accounting Office says is absolutely essential. If you take the money for something that might happen, how are you going to know when it does happen? This is the beginning of the homeland security assessment of threats and establishing an alert system. This amendment takes from both. I think that is absolutely wrong. I hope we will get other people to comment on this amendment. I understand the need. There is overwhelming need throughout the country for homeland security money. I congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, for what he has done, along with his staff. They have allocated it in a way that is really fair. These other amendments so far have been to add money beyond what we have available. This is taking money that has already been assigned by the committee and the subcommittee to a specific account and putting it in another account and saying it was shortchanged. But there is already money in that account. The account they are adding to already has in this bill $750 million. It had $850 million in the bill we passed earlier this year. That is enough. Compared to the rest of the demands in this country, that is enough for that fund. I urge the Senate to disapprove this amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS

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

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to conduct a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 24, 2003. The purpose of this meeting will be to mark up H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226. I. Nominations: James O. Browning to be United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico; Steven M. Colloton to be United States District Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit; P. Kevin Castel to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York; Sandra J. Feuerstein to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; Richard J. Holwell to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York; H. Brent McKnight to be United States District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina; R. David Proctor to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama; Stephen C. Robinson to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York; Rene Alexander Acosta to be Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice; Daniel J. Bryant to be Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, United States Department of Justice. II. Bills: S. J. Res. 1, A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime victims [Kyl, Chambliss, Cornyn, Craig, DeWine, Feinstein, Graham, Grassley]; S. 1301, The Video of Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2003 [DeWine, Schumer]; S. 1177, Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act [Hatch, Grassley, Kohl]; S. Con. Res. 40, Designating August 7, 2003, as ``National Purple Heart Recognition Day'' [Clinton, Biden, Chambliss, Durbin, Edwards, Feingold, Feinstein, Hatch, Kennedy, Kohl, Leahy, Schumer, Specter]; S. Res. 124, Designating September 28, 2003, as ``National Good Neighbor Day'' [Burns, Hatch, Kohl]; S. Res. 167, Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Harley-Davidson Motor Company [Campbell, DeWine, Feingold, Kohl].

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 24, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 24, 2003 at 3:00 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to conduct oversight of the competitive sourcing effort within the National Park Service.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 24, at 10:00 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Then and Now: An update on the Administration's Competitive Sourcing Initiative.''

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 1346

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing entitled ``Nowhere to Turn: Must Parents Relinquish Custody in Order to Secure Mental Health Services for Their Children?, Part Two: Government Response.''

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection if the Senator wishes to respond. I wish to get my motion to table on the record, and I am happy for the Senator to speak after that motion in relationship to the amendment. I have no problem with that. I just want to get my part of this business done so I can go chair that committee markup.

Mr. STEVENS. Is there an objection to my request that the motion to table vote be postponed until a time certain to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the minority leader?

Mr. STEVENS. I am prepared to yield the floor, and you can talk as much as you want.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield? I would be prepared to make a request that after Senator Durbin makes his remarks there be a period for morning business during which the Senator from North Dakota may be able to speak for up to 30 minutes on a matter not related to this bill.

Mr. STEVENS. That is fine. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Wyoming have 10 minutes to speak on the bill, and following that time, the Senator from North Dakota have 30 minutes as in morning business, and following that the Senator from----

Mr. STEVENS. Minnesota.

Mr. STEVENS. Could it be that we agree to 30 minutes of debate pertaining to matters relating to this amendment, notwithstanding the motion to table has been made? Is that agreeable? That will give us enough time to get back.

Mr. STEVENS. It is roughly 11 o'clock.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I don't know what the Senate would do without the assistance of the distinguished Democratic whip. We have in history Light Horse Harry, and this is our ``Heavy Horse'' Harry. He does the heavy work around here, and we all appreciate him.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield to me for a question?

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield to me for a question?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator is very kind. I have a whole lot of questions to ask. But I prefer to get on with the debate.