[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 72 (Wednesday, June 5, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5027-S5030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Transportation, I rise this evening in strong support 
of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4775, the supplemental appropriations 
bill for 2002.
  During our debate, I have heard complaints from some colleagues that 
this

[[Page S5028]]

bill is beyond the President's request. Members are asking why this 
bill is larger than the administration's request and why it is larger 
than the House-passed bill. Our bill is larger because it makes the 
critical investments we need to make in transportation security.
  We have spent months listening to the experts and finding out what 
investments we need to make. We did that in my own subcommittee, and 
through Senator Byrd's leadership we discovered the needs through full 
committee hearings on homeland defense. The President's budget and the 
House budget do not make the necessary investments in transportation 
security. Our bill does. That is why it is larger than the President's 
request.
  I want to spend a few minutes explaining what is in our bill because 
it will prove that these are critical investments that the President 
and the House have not been willing to make.
  For example, our bill funds the Transportation Security 
Administration. It will improve cargo security. It will enhance the 
security in and around our Nation's airports. It will improve security 
on inner-city buses. It will allow the Coast Guard to assess the 
vulnerability of our seaports. It will ensure that the FAA can meet the 
staffing needs at our Nation's control towers this summer without 
stealing from the budget for modernization and safety improvements. It 
will better reimburse our Nation's airports for the considerable 
expenses they have incurred due to our new security requirements. 
Overall, it will address the security challenges we all know are out 
there.

  Before I talk about some of the specifics of the bill, I want to 
correct the record on one point. I have heard some claim that our bill 
is $2.2 billion larger than the House-passed bill. That is simply not 
accurate. While some in the House claim their bill is $28.8 billion, it 
is actually $30.1 billion when we use traditional, customary 
Congressional Budget Office scorekeeping. Instead of using that method, 
they have used accounting gimmicks. For some items in their bill they 
have actually chosen to use OMB scorekeeping; for example, concerning 
the delays in the availability of airline loan guarantees.
  That point aside, the Senate bill is larger than the President's 
request and the House request, and one of the largest differences is in 
the area of transportation security. In this area, the funding level in 
our bill is $928 million or 20 percent higher than the administration's 
request.
  It is important to point out that the House of Representatives 
actually cut the President's request for transportation security. That 
is why the Senate bill is $1.244 billion or 29 percent higher than the 
House-passed bill.
  The centerpiece of the transportation chapter of this bill is the 
$4.7 billion the committee has included for the new Transportation 
Security Administration, or TSA. That amount is more than $300 million 
higher than the level requested by the administration and more than 
$850 million more than what is provided in the House bill.
  First and foremost, the funding provided for the TSA will fully cover 
the administration's request to implement the recently enacted Aviation 
and Transportation Security Act that the President signed into law.
  The House version of the bill imposes several cuts to the 
administration's request just at the time that the administration is 
aggressively seeking to meet the deadlines imposed by the 
Transportation Security Act. The most daunting of these deadlines is 
the requirement to screen all checked baggage for explosives by the end 
of this calendar year.
  As many of our colleagues, I have been frustrated with the 
performance of the Transportation Security Administration in 
implementing those requirements. There has not been sufficient 
consultation with the Nation's airports or with Congress, and there has 
not been a sufficient amount of hiring at the TSA of individuals with 
transportation backgrounds. But still I don't think the solution to 
these problems is to impose significant cuts on the resources the 
administration itself has requested.
  As with most of my colleagues, I do a lot of flying. I have witnessed 
the long lines of passengers seeking to get through airport security 
checkpoints. I have shared the frustration of clearing the security 
checkpoint only to be screened at the gate again. Our aviation industry 
is already suffering due to the fact that the high revenue business 
travelers who provide 40 percent of the airline's revenues are not 
returning to the skies.
  If the Transportation Security Administration does not succeed at its 
stated goal of providing high-quality customer service and a short wait 
to clear airport security, our aviation industry is going to suffer a 
great deal further.
  Secretary Mineta and Transportation Under Secretary Magaw have 
committed themselves to a national standard where no passenger will 
wait longer than 10 minutes to clear airport security. Frankly, many of 
us question whether they will ever achieve that goal. That is why the 
bill before us contains a requirement that the TSA publish on a monthly 
basis the actual wait times at each airport. I intend to monitor the 
TSA's performance in this area on a regular basis.

  Another area of great concern to me is that air passengers are 
treated with dignity as they pass through our Nation's airports. If 
passengers can be expected to be treated as criminals from the moment 
they walk into the airport, they are not going to fly. Treating air 
passengers as criminals is not a formula for helping our airlines get 
back on their feet.
  The administration's TSA budget has gone through a very torturous 
path. A full month passed from the time the Bush administration 
submitted its $4.4 billion supplemental budget request for TSA to the 
time Secretary Mineta could sit down with members of our committee and 
discuss what funds could be used for.
  That was not necessarily Secretary Mineta's fault. He was spending 
that month arguing with the President's Office of Management and Budget 
on how much money we needed to implement the requirement to screen all 
checked baggage for explosives. When the noise finally quieted down 
between the DOT and OMB, the results were, frankly, very disappointing. 
Rather than deploy a significant number of explosive detection system, 
EDS, machines that can be easily integrated at the airports' luggage 
distribution system, the administration has chosen to take a cheaper 
route. They want to deploy only trace detection machines at three-
quarters of our Nation's airports. These trace detection machines are 
effective at detecting explosives, but they were never designed or 
intended to be primary explosive detection mechanisms at our airports.
  What I find most troubling is the TSA's plan to require more than 
half of passengers' bags to be opened by Federal enforcement personnel 
at three-quarters of our Nation's airports. I don't believe the flying 
public is going to be very warm to the idea that more than half of 
their luggage will be checked by Federal personnel who will rifle 
through their baggage in the airports.
  As such, the committee has included directives to the TSA to ensure 
that this regime is implemented with dignity and privacy in mind so 
passengers will not have to open their baggage in full view of all the 
other passengers with whom they are traveling.
  The committee appropriation for the TSA includes a $35 million 
initiative in the area of aviation safety and security that was not 
requested by the administration. Those funds are to be used exclusively 
for enhanced perimeter security and terminal security. Unfortunately, 
it is not necessary to get through the security checkpoints to attack 
our Nation's aviation system.
  A terrorist can do a great deal of damage to our aviation system 
merely by performing a terrorist act within a crowded airport terminal.
  I believe we need a stronger surveillance regime in our airport 
terminals, and the funding entered by this committee will be used for 
that purpose.
  Also, the record indicates that more needs to be done to ensure that 
only those individuals who are properly credentialed and qualified are 
granted access to the secure areas of our airports.
  Over the last few months there has been a spate of indictments and 
arrests of individuals who used falsified documents to gain access to 
secure areas of our airports. The additional funding provided by our 
committee will ensure better protection of those areas.

[[Page S5029]]

  Now, perhaps these are improvements that the OMB considers to be 
unnecessary security add-ons, but I recommend that Director Daniels 
review the testimony of both Secretary Mineta and Under Secretary Magaw 
before making these complaints. Both of those gentlemen identified 
perimeter security as an area of significant need. That is not 
adequately funded under the President's proposal.
  In the area of port and maritime security, the committee has included 
several new funding initiatives over and above those requested by the 
administration.
  In the last supplemental appropriations bill, the committee included 
$93 million for a new advanced program to beef up security in our 
Nation's seaports. That $93 million appropriation elicited almost $700 
million in applications.
  In order to better meet that demand, the Senate bill includes an 
additional $200 million in the bill and also includes a $28 million 
initiative to deploy Operation Safe Commerce.
  During our full committee's hearings on homeland defense in April and 
May, we heard testimony from ADM Richard Larrabee. Admiral Larrabee 
recently retired from the Coast Guard and became the director of 
commerce for the ports in New York and New Jersey. He was sitting in 
his office in the World Trade Center when the terrorists attacked and 
he lost dozens of his colleagues on that day.
  Admiral Larrabee, along with CDR Stephen E. Flynn, Coast Guard, 
Retired, testified before our Appropriations Committee about the 
urgency of establishing a security regime to security cargo containers 
from the point of origin to their domestic destination.
  In addition to the work of the full committee on this issue, the 
subcommittee has held 2 hearings on this issue, hearing from the 
administration, labor, industry, port authorities, and others in the 
field. It is difficult to overstate the importance of beginning to deal 
with this set of issues now.
  Over 30 million intermodal containers enter our Nation's seaports 
each year and, frankly, we know very little about what is in them.
  Between the Coast Guard and Customs Service, fewer than 2 percent of 
those containers are ever physically inspected. The Customs Service has 
only recently begun to beef up the reporting requirements regarding the 
content of those containers.
  The Operation Safe Commerce initiative in our bill will be deployed 
at the three largest container load centers in our country. Together, 
those port areas take in more than 50 percent of the containers that 
enter our country every year.

  It is impossible to exaggerate the damage that could be done to our 
economy if we are suddenly required to slow down the trade lanes into 
and out of our country because of security concerns.
  This initiative will demonstrate the art of the possible when it 
comes to improving security of container shipping.
  Also, within the amount provided for the TSA, the committee provided 
$20 million for improved security for over-the-road bus operators.
  I wish to particularly commend the leadership of my colleague from 
Georgia, Senator Max Cleland, on this issue. As he notes, intercity bus 
transportation is part of our country's vital infrastructure. The 
Nation's intercity bus operators are just beginning to use the most 
rudimentary methods to better ensure security of bus passengers. Given 
the frequency with which we see terrorists overseas use buses as a 
venue for horrific acts of terrorism, this is the minimal investment we 
should be making in this area.
  The Senate bill provides slightly more than $666 million for the U.S. 
Coast Guard. Those funds will be used to accelerate the Coast Guard's 
planned vulnerability assessments of our Nation's seaports.
  Funds will also be used to expedite procurement of critical surface 
and aviation assets and to launch a new maritime domain awareness 
program to dramatically improve the Coast Guard's readiness to deal 
with domestic terrorist threats.
  During our committee's hearing with Admiral Larrabee, we were 
disappointed to hear that the Coast Guard doesn't plan to conduct its 
vulnerability assessment of the second largest shipping port in the 
United States for 2 years. The committee did not consider that to be a 
satisfactory plan. So our bill grants the Coast Guard funds to expedite 
these port vulnerability assessments across the country so we can 
better secure these gateways of the globe.
  The bill also includes $115 million that was not requested by the 
administration for the emergency funding needs of the Federal Aviation 
Administration. Since September 11, the FAA has had to spend at least 
$100 million to dramatically enhance security around its own critical 
air traffic control towers.
  As a result, the FAA now finds itself $100 million short of the 
amount it needs to provide critical overtime expenses for air traffic 
controllers as we enter the busy summertime travel season.
  Senators will remember, as I do, that during the two summers prior to 
September 11, air transportation in our country was rife with delays. 
If we don't adequately fund the shortfall in overtime at the FAA, we 
can expect to experience those delays again.
  The administration's budget proposed to meet this $100 million 
shortfall by transferring funds already appropriated to improve air 
traffic control equipment, safety, and capacity. To me, that is not a 
responsible solution. We are years, if not decades, behind where we 
need to be in modernizing our air traffic control system, and we have 
huge, unmet needs at our airports.
  That is why our bill provides the $100 million needed to pay for the 
air traffic controllers without stealing from those other accounts.
  The Senate bill also includes an additional $100 million to better 
compensate the Nation's airports for the security costs they have 
incurred since September 11. Last year, the committee appropriated $175 
million for that purpose.

  But the airports committed almost $500 million in costs to the FAA 
for this funding. This additional $100 million will better reimburse 
the Nation's small, medium, and large hub airports for the costs 
associated with the security directives issued by the FAA since 
September 11.
  Finally, separate from the issue of homeland defense, the bill 
includes a provision drafted by Senator Harry Reid and myself 
authorizing a higher obligation ceiling for the Federal Aid Highway 
Program for fiscal year 2003.
  As Members should be aware, the administration's budget proposes that 
overall highway funding to the States be drastically slashed by $8.6 
billion next year. That represents a cut of more than 27 percent.
  Senator Reid serves as the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee 
for highways, and the provision he and I drafted will ensure that, as 
part of the appropriations process for 2003, the Appropriations 
Committee will restore at least $4.5 billion of the President's cut and 
perhaps as much as $5.7 billion.
  I believe my colleagues will agree that during this uncertain time in 
our economy, we must do our best to avoid the President's proposal to 
slash thousands of jobs and cut our investment in our Nation's 
transportation infrastructure.
  The provision included in this bill--authorized by Senator Reid and 
myself--will go a long way toward that goal.
  I also thank my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, the ranking 
member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, for his 
assistance in developing the transportation chapter of this bill.
  I also thank Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens for the bipartisan 
leadership of the Appropriations Committee and for their receptive 
approach to the views of our subcommittee. Both leaders demonstrated 
needed vision and commitment to exploring and understanding these 
issues of critical importance to our Nation's security and prosperity.
  I believe the transportation chapter of this bill represents a 
strong, comprehensive approach to our homeland security needs, and I 
look forward to arguing for every dollar of this funding when we go to 
conference with the House of Representatives.
  Each item was developed with thought and care. Each item represents 
an investment that needs to be made.

[[Page S5030]]

Each item will help build a more secure America.
  The critics of this bill, and those who are impeding progress, put 
those investments at risk. I ask: What investment in airport security 
don't you want to make? What investment in seaport security don't you 
want to make? What will you say to the American people--our soldiers 
and sailors who are defending the Nation--when we don't make these 
needed investments?
  This is a reasonable bill. It takes a reasonable approach to 
investing in America's security needs.
  It was reported unanimously by our committee, and I hope the Senate 
can dispense with the delays and get on with passing this very 
important bill. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to briefly speak about the 
legislation before us and to lend my support to the supplemental 
appropriations bill. I commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens for a 
job well done. They took extensive testimony in many hearings to 
determine the needs for homeland security, as well as many other needs, 
and they have incorporated those provisions in this bill.
  I also salute and commend my colleague from Washington State, Senator 
Murray, for giving an excellent discussion of the transportation 
aspects of this bill. She indicated the detailed and the careful 
deliberation that went into the crafting of this legislation and 
suggested also the reality that was confronted by the committee in 
hearing testimony from witnesses who indicated it might take up to 2 
years to do a survey of a port when, in fact, the American people are 
demanding action immediately, not 2 years from now--when the threat is 
immediate, not hypothetical or 2 years removed.
  As a result, I find it ironic, to say the least, that opponents of 
this bill would simply say we will sacrifice all the needed expenses 
because the total that we recommend is higher than that recommended by 
the President of the United States.
  Frankly, if you asked most Americans, they would say we are not 
spending enough on homeland security. If you asked them how much they 
would want us to spend, it would be: Spend as much as you need to 
ensure not just one port or one airfield but every port and every 
airfield, and to ensure every community in America is protected. That 
is what this bill attempts to do.
  This is a downpayment on a much larger bill because the issues and 
threats we confront will not be banished within a few weeks or a few 
months. It is long term, ongoing, requiring a tremendous commitment of 
resources. This is a good downpayment and one that I support 
wholeheartedly.
  The legislation includes within its provisions $14 billion for the 
cost of our operations in Afghanistan. To delay this bill any longer 
because of some objections or some overall objection and compromise for 
delaying funds for Afghanistan, to me, is inconceivable. We have those 
resources which we must commit and we must spend immediately.
  The bill also includes $5.5 billion for the recovery of New York 
City--again, expenses that we cannot ignore, cannot defer. We have to 
respond.
  There is $4.4 billion for aviation security, once again, a critical 
aspect of our response to the very real threats we face today because 
of terrorist attacks on the United States.
  The bill contains $1.95 billion for international programs to aid the 
war on terrorism. These are important complements to our military 
operations. The administration speaks often, and correctly, about 
draining the swamp where the terrorists reside. That cannot be done by 
wishing it away. We have to have resources to deal with profound 
problems across the globe--inadequate education systems, the overall 
threat of poverty, lack of economic development--all of those factors 
that contribute directly sometimes, but certainly indirectly, to the 
atmosphere that encourages terrorism, encourages those who attack us.
  I just returned, with some of my colleagues, from a conference of 
defense ministers in Singapore. If we look across the globe, this 
threat is very real and very sobering. We need resources to mount a 
counteroffensive. Those resources are not just military, they also 
involve assistance to local governments that are assisting us by 
intelligence operations, by using their military forces and their 
intelligence apparatus to help us in this war on terror. For all these 
reasons, we need to pass this bill and do it promptly.
  One of the major provisions of the bill is $3 billion for homeland 
defense, and that incorporates many issues--first responders, police 
and fire--to make sure these very brave men and women have the 
materials and the know-how to confront a wholly different threat. I do 
not think anyone conceived even a year ago that our police and fire 
departments would be at the front lines of sophisticated attacks by 
terrorists against the United States, involving mass casualty 
operations and massive destruction, yet they are. We have to give them 
the tools to do the job, to protect themselves, and to protect the 
communities they serve so well. Those provisions are within this bill 
also.
  We have to protect our nuclear facilities. It was shocking to me--and 
again this goes to the credibility of the administration saying they 
oppose this bill because we are spending too much. It was reported 
recently in the press that the authorities responsible for protecting 
our nuclear facilities asked for considerably more money and were told 
by OMB: No, we cannot afford it.
  We are not going to accept that answer. We want those facilities 
protected. Where there are nuclear powerplants, where there are nuclear 
facilities of the Department of Energy throughout this country, we want 
those facilities guarded, protected to prevent a catastrophic terrorist 
attack. That is one aspect of this bill which is important also.
  We also have to recognize the issue of biological terror. We 
witnessed firsthand in this Senate a biological attack. It is 
expensive, and we simply cannot wait for the next attack. We have to 
anticipate and, through our wise preventive actions, we hope preclude 
any type of attack. But that is not the result of wishful thinking and 
hoping it will not happen. That is putting real resources into 
prevention, into response, into those things that will prepare us for 
any type of mass casualty attack--biological, nuclear, or even a 
conventional weapon that is deployed against our people.
  I believe the chairman, the ranking member, and the subcommittee 
chairmen and women and their counterparts, the ranking members, have 
done a very good job responding to the concerns.
  In the Appropriations Committee when I sat and listened to this 
testimony from the people who are responsible in the Federal 
Government, at the State level, and in the local communities, I did not 
hear: You are spending too much. I heard: We need more help; we have to 
be responsive. Their position is not sitting here in Washington, it is 
literally on the front lines of this war on terror.
  If we listened to the men and women who are directly responsible for 
protecting the American people from terrorist threats, I think they 
would say in a very strong and uniform chorus: Pass this bill now. It 
is not too expensive. In fact, it is simply a downpayment on 
significant costs we will face in the foreseeable future.
  Our enemies are implacable. They are determined. They are 
reorganizing to strike again, and if we do not seize the moment and put 
the resources into a concerted, deliberate, expeditious effort to 
protect the American people, we will regret it and the American people 
will suffer the consequences. I urge we pass this legislation as 
quickly as possible.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________