[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 53 (Wednesday, April 2, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H2674-H2681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               PRESSING ISSUES IN AMERICA'S WAR ON TERROR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I am joined on the floor tonight by a 
group of Democrats who feel very strongly about the need to be sure 
that our Nation is prepared to defend against terrorist attacks and to 
respond in the event we have a terrorist attack on our soil.
  As we speak tonight, we know that our young men and women in uniform 
are risking their lives fighting for our freedoms and liberty in and 
around Iraq. They make us very proud by the sacrifices they are making 
on behalf of our Nation, and we are proud of each of them and the 
commitment that they are making on our behalf.
  None of us on this floor would dare suggest that we not provide them 
with the very best in equipment, the very best in training as they 
enter into that battle. We know that our men and women in uniform shall 
do the duties that we have asked them to do.
  We know that we fight a war tonight in Iraq, but we also know that we 
are engaged in another battle here at home, the war against terrorism. 
We became acutely aware of that battle on September 11 of 2001, and in 
the 18 months since al Qaeda struck in the shadows, or from the 
shadows, and declared war on America, we know that we have a changed 
world.
  Just as we prepare for battle in Iraq and arm our young men and women 
with the very best in equipment and training, we know that it is 
important for us as Americans to arm those who will fight the battle 
here at home against terrorism with the very best in equipment and the 
very best of training. Tonight we will address some of the issues that 
we think are pressing on our Nation in order to prevail in the battle 
against terror.
  On this floor tomorrow we will debate a $78 billion appropriation 
supplemental bill to fund the war and to prepare America to fight the 
war against terror at home. Tonight we will hear several Members from 
the Democratic side of the aisle share what we believe to be 
deficiencies in the proposal that will be debated tomorrow, because we 
firmly believe that our Nation must be prepared not only to defend 
against terror, but to prevail against terror. The Democratic Members 
of the House have a plan, a plan to win the war on terror.
  It is my pleasure, Madam Speaker, to yield to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey), who serves on the Committee on Homeland 
Security, to speak to one of the issues that is so critically 
important, the issue of nuclear power plant security.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished ranking 
member from Texas, who has the same laryngitis I do, for yielding to 
me. I appreciate his leadership on this very important issue.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to discuss my continued concerns about security 
at the Nation's commercial nuclear reactors. Since September 11, 2001, 
intelligence officials have amassed a critical body of evidence 
suggesting terrorists intend to strike our nuclear infrastructure. 
Plans of U.S. nuclear facilities discovered in al Qaeda caves during 
U.S. military operations in Afghanistan provided perhaps the earliest 
indication that terrorists had not just casually contemplated, but 
rather assiduously, studied the option of sabotaging a nuclear reactor.
  In early March, fresh intelligence confirmed our worst fears: 
Terrorists continued to plot attacks against nuclear and other critical 
infrastructure. Recent reports of a terrorist plan to sabotage the Palo 
Verde nuclear power plant in Arizona were sufficiently serious that the 
National Guard was immediately deployed to secure the plant.
  As disturbing as these revelations is the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's failure to coherently address them. Indeed, the NRC, the 
agency responsible for ensuring the safety and security of the 
country's 103 commercial reactors, has shown a remarkable unwillingness 
to recognize post-September 11 terrorist threats.
  The commission flatly denied petitions by citizen groups for 
reinforcement of the spent fuel pools at Millstone Nuclear Power 
Station, stating ``the possibility of a terrorist attack is speculative 
. . . and simply too far removed from the natural or expected 
consequences of agency action.''
  Over 18 months after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the same old 
assumptions about the size, tactics, and weapons used by an attacking 
force, referred to as the Design Basis Threat, guides serious security 
policies.
  The NRC continues to presume a terrorist force of no more than three 
individuals, with one passive insider who would relay information to 
the outside force, but not manipulate any controls or even attempt to 
incapacitate plant operators. The NRC further assumes that the 
attacking force would not utilize a vehicle larger than a Jeep to 
transport and detonate explosives. The Design Basis Threat is also 
built on the premise that sophisticated weaponry, including grenade 
launchers and shaped charges, is well beyond the reach of terrorists.
  These flawed assumptions define the conditions for NRC-supervised 
force-on-force exams, in which security personnel must defend the 
reactors against mock terrorists. They also govern NRC standards with 
respect to the size, training, and capability of the guard force.

[[Page H2675]]

  Our national response to nuclear terrorism must no longer be 
predicated on such hollow hopes.
  More than the Design Basis Threat is in urgent need of revision. The 
NRC has not required reinforcement of the walls of nuclear reactors and 
spent fuel pools. Although these pools often contain several times the 
radioactive material of the reactor vessels themselves, they remain 
among the most lightly defended parts of the nuclear facilities.
  Collision of a large aircraft into these pools, which are not 
designed to withstand such an impact, could result in release of 
radioactive material in as little as 1 hour. A recent report on the 
hazards of spent fuel pools written by a team of distinguished 
scientists concluded that the long-term land contamination consequences 
of a spent pool fuel fire could be significantly worse than those of 
Chernobyl.
  Force-on-force drills in which plant personnel respond to a mock 
terrorist attack have not been administered at some facilities in over 
8 years. The NRC has only recently resumed these drills, discontinued 
after September 11, 2001. Nuclear power plants' abysmal performances on 
these force-on-force drills, licensees have failed about half of all of 
the exams administered, causes me considerable consternation.
  The NRC has never decommissioned or fined facilities failing the 
exam. At an August security drill at the Indian Point Energy Center in 
Buchanon, New York, which abuts my district, mock attackers were able 
to place simulated explosives at the spent fuel pools twice in 60 
seconds or less. The NRC nevertheless ultimately passed Indian Point 
with high marks.
  The absence of any sanctions for poor performance provides licensees 
with little incentive to improve security. The commission's decision to 
administer force-on-force drills triennially, while certainly an 
improvement, will be of limited effectiveness as long as violations go 
unpunished. Chronic turnover in security personnel at nuclear 
facilities, which can approach 70 to 100 percent for a 3\1/2\ year 
period, also makes more frequent exams essential.
  The size and tactics employed by the mock enemy force is still based 
on the current flawed Design Basis Threat of three lightly armed 
terrorists and one passive insider. More frequent realistic exams, 
coupled with stiff penalties for poor performance, would dramatically 
improve the usefulness of these drills.
  The absence of strong Federal training standards have left many 
guards wholly unprepared to fend off a terrorist attack. Tactics are 
commonly taught using painted clothespins and a flat surface rather 
than serious simulation models.
  The testimony of guards in a report released by the Project on 
Government Oversight challenges industry assertions that personnel 
received 270 hours of pre-posting training, 90 hours of recurrent 
firearms training, and 30 hours per year of tactical instructions. Most 
guards interviewed engaged in firearms training only a few hours every 
year, and had no moving-target practice.

                              {time}  1815

  Such training is all the more necessary as many personnel have no 
prior military or law enforcement experience. Physical agility exams 
are notoriously lax and wholly inadequate to verify plant personnel 
could respond effectively to a coordinated attack by multiple 
professional terrorists. An internal report completed by Entergy, the 
plant's owners, in 2001 revealed that 4 out of 5 guards interviewed by 
Entergy lacked confidence in their ability to thwart a terrorist 
attack. The majority of guards also stated they feared retribution if 
they spoke up about security concerns and substandard hiring and 
training procedures. Struggling to fill vacancies, Entergy has hired 
personnel with little or no law enforcement or military background. 
Security-sensitive information, including guard performance on firearm 
drills, has not been protected in accordance with Federal regulations.
  Astoundingly, the NRC never fined or even warned Entergy for these 
practices which violated Commission-approved security policies. Foster 
Zeh, a certified instructor at Indian Point and vocal critic of its 
security operations, has affirmed, with few exceptions the problems 
identified in the December 2002 report still exist today.
  I worry that a similar system prevails at other nuclear reactors 
around the country. The NRC's policy of benign negligence should no 
longer stand.
  Training and qualification standards for guards must be strengthened 
and an enforcement system with real teeth must be put in place. A 
comprehensive evaluation of present terrorist threats and of the new 
security policies needed to address them is long overdue.
  Certainly the stakes are high. Studies on the impact of a successful 
attack on a nuclear facility detail public health and economic 
consequences almost too chilling to contemplate. A 1982 investigation 
commissioned by the NRC found that a meltdown at Indian Point, which 
lies within 50 miles of 21 million people, could lead to 123,000 short- 
and long-term deaths, over 300,000 injuries, and property damages 
conservatively estimated at over $1 trillion. Factoring the fourfold 
increase in property values in the New York metropolitan area since the 
study, the economic damages for our region could reach $2.3 trillion.
  This administration's recent decision to restrict public access to 
millions of classified documents, including those potentially dealing 
with the safety of nuclear power plants, represents a step in the wrong 
direction. Covering NRC activities in a veil of secrecy would limit the 
public's ability to effectively critique the plan, thereby removing a 
critical check on the agency.
  The Department of Energy, pursuing a similar strategy, has repeatedly 
refused to provide the Government Affairs Office with details on the 
Design Basis Threat, information the office requires to complete a 
report on physical security at DOE sites.
  As terrorist threats increase across the globe, we must acknowledge 
the vulnerability of nuclear infrastructure and craft thoughtful, 
coherent responses. In this area we truly delay at our own peril.
  And I want to thank the gentleman again, my friend the Congressman 
and the ranking member of our select committee, for arranging this time 
to share our views on this very important issue of homeland security. I 
thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. I 
appreciate her leadership on the Select Committee on Homeland Security 
as well as her work on the Committee on Appropriations.
  The amendment that Democrats hope to be able to offer, hope will be 
made in order tomorrow, would provide over $240 million for nuclear 
security to cover the items mentioned by the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey).
  I am pleased now to recognize another member of Select Committee on 
Homeland Security, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Intelligence and Counterterrorism of the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner) and distinguished ranking member of the Select 
Committee on Homeland Security, for this timely special order.
  There is no more important issue facing us in Congress than 
protecting the freedom and security of the American people. I was 
deeply honored when the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) asked 
me to serve on the Select Committee on Homeland Security. It is a 
responsibility that I take very seriously and I am eager to embrace the 
challenges confronting us.
  We have an incredibly important obligation to our first responders 
across the country, and we must make their needs a top priority. 
Firefighters, law enforcement officers, health care workers, and others 
on the front lines need our support to keep America safe. With dozens 
of States experiencing their worst fiscal crises since World War II, 
combined with the activation of thousands of Guard and Reserve members, 
first responders are more desperate than ever for Federal assistance. 
In addition, we are faced with significant unmet needs in the area of 
port security, nuclear and chemical plant security, border security and 
more. Mayors and Governors nationwide are faced with soaring costs as 
they seek to meet

[[Page H2676]]

their obligations under a heightened threat alert and a newly 
implemented Operation Liberty Shield.

  I was deeply disappointed to learn yesterday during the supplemental 
appropriations markup, Republicans voted down the Obey amendment to add 
$2.5 billion in homeland security funding. This funding is absolutely 
critical if we are to live up to our promises to the American people. 
The amendment would have meant an additional $3 million of first 
responder funding for my home State of Rhode Island, money that is 
sorely needed to equip our State and local governments to fight the 
domestic fronts of our war on terror.
  Another area that is of special interest to me is intelligence, and I 
am honored to be serving as interim ranking member on the Subcommittee 
on Intelligence and Counterterrorism. In this capacity I hope to turn 
the committee's attention to some critical issues facing Congress as 
the new Department of Homeland Security gets up and running.
  One of the most important things we must address is the issue of 
integration and cooperation among the different intelligence agencies. 
We need to know how DHS is receiving and analyzing information, what 
kind of intelligence the agency is getting, whether the process is 
efficient and streamlined, and whether DHS and the rest of the 
Intelligence Community understand their roles and obligations to each 
other clearly enough to make sure that there is neither too much 
overlap nor too much falling through the cracks.
  Along these lines it is absolutely critical that we look at the 
relationship between the President's proposed Terrorist Threat 
Integration Center and the DHS Information Analysis Directorate. Their 
roles sound strikingly similar to me and it has not been made at all 
clear how they will interrelate and work together.
  In addition, we must ensure that our State and local law enforcement 
agencies are properly equipped to share information and coordinated 
activities so that threats that cross jurisdictional lines can be 
adequately addressed.
  Finally, as we endeavor to identify threats before they become real 
dangers, we must be ever vigilant of the civil liberties of our 
citizens. Protecting the homeland does not need to run counter to 
protecting privacy and freedom. We should make sure that intelligence 
tools are used judiciously, and we must always work towards a balance 
that ensures both security and liberty.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for 
hosting this special order and urge my colleagues to make homeland 
security a priority both in words and in deeds.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for Rhode 
Island (Mr. Langevin) and I thank him for his leadership as the ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism of the 
Select Committee on Homeland Security.
  Next I would like to recognize another outstanding member of our 
Select Committee on Homeland Security, the distinguished delegate from 
the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by first thanking 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for his leadership on the select 
committee and for this opportunity to draw attention to the critical 
issues of homeland security. And I also want to take the opportunity to 
thank as well the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), for the honor of having me serve on this important committee.
  I was placed here, I think, especially because I am a physician. The 
issue of bioterrorism is central to the work we are charged with and it 
is a charge we take very seriously. It is especially so for those of us 
who have long been concerned about the poor state of the public health 
infrastructure in many of our communities across the Nation, both urban 
and rural, as well as in our offshore areas.
  The ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) has begun 
working to ensure we will have the hearings, briefings, and roundtable 
discussions to learn as much as we can about the public health and 
other needs of our communities so we will be better positioned to 
respond to them.
  We had our first hearing which was on Project Bioshield last week. 
And while I am a strong supporter of NIH and applaud the work that they 
do, and while I was impressed with the Department's employment of 
advanced technology to be able to monitor and be alerted in real time 
of any potentially dangerous exposure, all of that will be useless if 
we do not take care of the public health facilities, personnel, and 
systems at home in our towns, cities, and islands who must be ready to 
respond immediately.

  We cannot in some cases afford to lose 1 minute; in others, to wait 
the time to takes for DMAT teams or deployable medical units. They are 
great things. We have used them in the Virgin Islands after hurricanes, 
and they are very important, but we may not have the time it takes to 
get them to the site.
  The health care disparities in minorities and in our rural areas that 
I have come to this floor to bring to the attention of our colleagues 
on many occasions did not just come about by chance. They exist because 
of the poor public health systems in these communities. The last 2 
years of cuts to health budgets have been devastating. The lack of 
emphasis on minority and rural health and the even bigger cuts that the 
President is insisting on this year, so that those who already have the 
best of health care can get a tax cut and other perks, have sent States 
into a free fall of budget deficits, and local public health safety 
nets, like those in Los Angeles and Detroit, to near collapse.
  So, Madam Speaker, we cannot just throw money at the problem of 
terrorism, as this administration has a tendency to do, without 
adequate planning. In this case, we must first and foremost insist that 
our public health system is intact and that it can ensure that people 
are healthy and our bodies are in a better condition to fight off 
infections and the other biological assaults that may come from a 
bioterrorism attack.
  The anthrax scare taught us that lesson. The breakdowns were 
fundamental ones. Project Bioshield, the administration's centerpiece 
for public health preparedness and biological countermeasures, would 
not have saved the two postal workers just a little way away from here 
who died because the public health system failed to respond. It 
happened here, but it could happen anywhere.
  SARS, although that has not been determined to be deliberate, is 
testing the world health community once again. I am very pleased to be 
here with my colleagues and to be working with the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and our other colleagues on the 
committee to bring real homeland-hometown security to the people of 
this country and restore the hope that was shaken so violently on 9/11/
2001. It can be done. We can be secure again, but the requisite funding 
must be there in the supplemental tomorrow, and we have to do it by 
fixing and fortifying the public health systems that we depend on to 
keep us healthy every day.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the 
Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen). I particularly appreciate her 
leadership in the health care field. Her training as a medical doctor 
means much to us when we are dealing with the threats of bioterrorism 
and preparedness in the health care arena. We thank you for your 
leadership.
  Next I would like to recognize another member of our Select Committee 
on Homeland Security, a gentleman who spent a great deal of time 
working on behalf of emergency preparedness to be sure our first 
responders get the tools and the training that they need to do the job, 
the distinguished member from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), for his exemplary leadership as 
ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on Homeland Security. 
He has a weighty and difficult course to chart in helping Congress stay 
focused on the most important issues of our day; but I cannot, if I can 
just move to an addendum, a footnote, I must respond to what I heard 
early this evening.
  I voted on October 10 to support the President. That does not make me 
any

[[Page H2677]]

better of an American than those who voted not to support the 
resolution; and until we understand that, we do not really understand 
the impact of the Constitution. I carry this document with me at all 
times, and I would suggest that to come to this floor and to challenge 
those people who may disagree, who may protest, this is what changes us 
from the other guys, the bad guys. I had to put that in there. I hope 
my colleague does not mind.
  Sometimes I fear that we do lose focus, Madam Speaker. Even as our 
national alert system is ablaze in Code Orange, our Armed Forces are 
fighting thousands of miles away. I just returned this last month. I 
was there in central Asia and in Kuwait. Far too much of our time has 
been spent on the rigid, uncompromising domestic proposals that have 
been sent to us time and time again.
  At least it is somewhat heartening to see that tomorrow on the third 
day of the fourth month of 2003, we will begin debate on needed funding 
for the war and needed funding for homeland security. It is a little 
bit too late to be sure, but I also fear that it is too little.
  I would like to read my colleagues a brief passage from a December 
2002 report sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, not a 
partisan group by any stretch. They wrote, ``America remains 
dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic 
terrorist attack on U.S. soil.'' Just a few months ago they said that. 
Let that statement frame our conversation here tonight, and let those 
words linger in all of our thoughts as we decide on what the priorities 
of this Congress should be from here on out.
  We must take every possible measure, bear any needed costs to 
safeguard our country and our people, and that is exactly what we are 
doing for our sons and daughters on the battlefield in Iraq and in 
Afghanistan.
  A one-track-minded commitment to massive new tax breaks does not help 
us in this regard. As has been reported everywhere, local communities 
are now charged with an enormous responsibility. When Washington calls 
Code Orange alert, the States and local communities absorb the costs of 
heightened security measures.
  In New Jersey, it has spent close to $66 million, Madam Speaker, on 
homeland security needs this fiscal year alone. Shockingly, these 
increased security measures statewide cost about $125,000 a day. 
Nationwide, a new survey released last week, by the United States 
Conference of Mayors, as a former mayor, I can particularly appreciate, 
they estimate that cities are spending $70 million a week as a result 
of the war and the increased threat alert. At a time when our economy 
is barely moving, when States throughout our country are suffering from 
debilitating budget deficits, this is money they can ill afford.
  We appreciate that tomorrow's supplemental spending measure includes 
almost $4.2 billion to homeland security; specifically, I am glad to 
see $2 billion allotted to our first responders in terms of State 
grants. However, let us be real. The $2 billion included for first 
responders, combined with the $3.5 billion set-aside in fiscal 2003, 
the omnibus bill, is just about a third of what local governments 
really need. If we really care about our firefighters and police 
officers and other emergency workers, and I think both sides of the 
aisle are committed to this, Madam Speaker, but we have got to put our 
money where our mouth is. If everything's a priority, nothing's a 
priority; and we need to prioritize this to those first responders 
where they are day in and day out.
  Three weeks ago, I had another meeting with first responders in my 
district. They reiterated what everyone who studies homeland security 
agrees upon: firefighters and police officers need better training. 
They need protective gear. They need interoperable communications 
equipment, when they rush to the scene of a terrorist attack. These 
people on the front lines know what they need. We do not need any 
consultants. We do not have to hire consultants to find this out. Ask 
them; they will tell us.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) introduced that amendment 
yesterday. When it went down the tubes, I could not believe this. Our 
priority must be to improve local emergency preparedness, to provide 
for a strong homeland defense. If we agree that this is our priority, 
then we must do more.
  I am disheartened, I will conclude, Madam Speaker, by the 2004 
budget, which is not what we will be voting on tomorrow. That budget 
cuts $4.1 billion from the Justice Department programs. Think about 
this. Here we are dealing with a supplemental tomorrow to help our 
first responders, and yet we are cutting money for the cops. We are 
cutting money for the Edward Burn grants. We are cutting money for fire 
assistance. So we are giving on one hand; and we are saying to the FBI, 
the INS, the DEA and Customs, wait, hold on.
  I assure my colleagues, I realize that every person sitting at home, 
anything over $1 million sounds like a tremendous amount of money and 
it is. So the fact that I am here arguing in a realm of billions of 
dollars may seem excessive, but we cannot do this on the cheap. If we 
think we can, we are wrong. Ask those people, ask those mayors, ask 
those councilmen, ask those Governors. They need help. They have been 
footing the bill since 9-11. Do we not get it? If we get it, we need to 
respond; and I thank the gentleman from Texas for giving me this 
opportunity to speak.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey for his leadership on behalf of homeland security.
  The amendment that the Democrats hope to be able to offer on the 
floor tomorrow on the supplemental appropriations bill would provide 
slightly over $1 billion in additional funding for first responders, 
first responder equipment, firefighter grants, chemical/biological 
response to support State and local governments and to provide civil 
defense team funding. These we believe are important issues to ensure 
the security of our Nation and also to be sure that we arm and train 
those soldiers on the front lines of homeland security just as we are 
always committed to funding those who fight for us abroad.
  It is my pleasure now to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), the distinguished ranking member of the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, a gentleman who knows perhaps more 
about the functions of a very important element of homeland security, 
the United States Coast Guard, than any person in this House.
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those kinds 
words and his leadership in initiating this Special Order tonight to 
focus on transportation security, homeland security.
  We have made a great deal of progress on aviation security, thanks to 
the tough law with strong deadlines that this Congress passed, largely 
initiated by the Democratic Caucus on the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure; but we have made little progress in other modes by 
comparison. The administration has been unconscionably slow in 
proposing security measures and requesting the necessary funding to 
initiate and implement those measures.
  Case in point is maritime transportation. EPA has identified 123 
chemical manufacturing facilities in the U.S. where toxic gases 
released by a terrorist attack could kill or injure more than 1 million 
people and 700 other chemical facilities where an attack could kill or 
injure 100,000 people. Most of those 823 facilities are along the 
navigable waterways of the United States.
  The Maritime Transportation Security Act, otherwise known as the port 
security bill, requires the Coast Guard to undertake a vulnerability 
assessment of each of those facilities and requires the owner to have 
the security plan approved by the Coast Guard and implemented by July 1 
of next year. Good idea, good plan. Implementation in serious doubt. We 
have yet to see any plan from the administration for conducting 
vulnerability assessments of these chemical facilities, let alone a 
process to review and approve the security plans for these chemical 
time bombs.
  The Port Security Act also requires the Federal Government to 
undertake vulnerability assessments of every vessel, port and facility 
to assess security weaknesses. By July 1 of next year, the Coast Guard 
is required to review and

[[Page H2678]]

approve a security plan for each port, facility and vessel. If it does 
not have a security plan, it cannot operate.
  Again, slow implementation. Only in the past week has Secretary Ridge 
agreed to accelerate the rate of port vulnerability assessments to 
ensure that assessment will be done at the Nation's 55 largest ports by 
the end of next year. There are 361 ports in the United States. When 
are they going to get serious about this?
  Then we have the Vessel Security Provisions Maritime Transportation 
Security Act. In the December 30, 2002, Federal Register, the Coast 
Guard stated it was going to accept the security certification, pay 
attention to this, issued by the foreign government where the vessel is 
documented. That means the U.S. Coast Guard will accept security 
certification by countries such as Liberia, Panama, Malta, Cyprus.
  We did not intend the security of the Nation to be placed in the 
hands of the country that runs those flags of convenience registers. We 
expect the Coast Guard to review the plans firsthand. They will have 
very great difficulty reviewing foreign security flag plans since the 
International Maritime Organization Standards allow those plans to be 
written in French and Spanish.
  The administration is supposed to support funding to secure our ports 
and facilities as required by the law. The Coast Guard estimates are it 
will cost $4.4 billion to provide port security over the next 10 years, 
and the administration to date has requested only $11 million. Congress 
has appropriated $350 million, but the administration has made 
available only $92.3 million of available port security funds.
  When the maritime administration asked for proposals for the ports, 
they received requests totaling seven times the amount of money 
available, and even though we have appropriated more funds, no further 
grants have been awarded.
  Last week, we passed a budget resolution that attempted to deal with 
this issue, but our side did not prevail. The other side did. It passed 
by one vote, but again, their budget proposal does not have enough in 
it to deal with the needs of port security.
  I do not want America's port security to be in the hands of a country 
like Liberia that cannot even protect itself, let alone our maritime 
interests. This administration is not taking the threat to port 
security or its responsibility seriously enough. Securing the Nation's 
ports and the cargo that moves through them is a Federal 
responsibility. All Americans, whether they live in a port city or in 
Boise, Idaho, will benefit from that security.
  The impact on our economy, on all Americans, if the Nation's ports 
are shut down, as the Nation's airports were in the aftermath of 
September 11 because of a terrorist attack, that aftermath, those 
consequences will be far greater than the consequences of September 11. 
Refineries will run out of oil. Factory lines will shut down. Stores 
will run out of goods. The economy will come to a screeching halt. We 
cannot let this happen.
  Madam Speaker, I insert for the Record the rest of my remarks:


                           aviation security

  In aviation, the Transportation Security Administration has made 
major progress in enhancing security by securing cockpit doors, hiring 
and training a workforce of federal employees to screen baggage, and 
procuring and installing explosives detection and trace detection 
equipment to screen most checked baggage. However, at a few airports, 
not all baggage is being screened by detection equipment. TSA has been 
directed to have all baggage inspected with explosive detection 
equipment by December 31, 2003. We need to ensure that this deadline is 
met.
  We also need to work on other areas of aviation security such as 
cargo. Current Explosion Detection Equipment systems are too small and 
too slow to screen all cargo carried on aircraft. TSA relies on the 
``known shipper'' program to screen most cargo but questions have been 
raised about how well shippers are known by the carriers accepting 
cargo from them.
  We also need to do much more work in securing the perimeters of our 
airports.


                        amtrak's security needs

  We have to devote considerably more attention to security problems 
for passenger rail. Although there are unmet security needs of at least 
$140 million dollars, the Administration has not requested funding.
  Intercity rail passengers on Amtrak trains and the hundreds of 
thousands of others who use Amtrak stations and other facilities each 
day are also potential targets of terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks 
on crowded stations and on key elements of the infrastructure are a 
particular cause for concern. A preliminary estimate of the cost to 
secure Amtrak's facilities is $100 million.
  Amtrak has immediate security needs for its six New York area tunnels 
that connect New Jersey and Long Island to Penn Station. Amtrak, New 
Jersey Transit and the Long Island Railroad operate more than 1,180 
trains through these tunnels each day. Although strapped for funding, 
Amtrak has begun engineering watertight doors to separate these tunnels 
from Penn Station. It is imperative that this work be completed as soon 
as possible to prevent catastrophic flooding of parts on NYC that are 
beneath the water table (including Penn Station, the Subway system and 
much of Lower Manhattan). Amtrak is trying to complete the work before 
the scheduled date of May 2004 and requires a $4 million reimbursement 
for this emergency construction.
  Amtrak also needs $40 million to develop redundant capacity for its 
train dispatching centers. Currently, Amtrak has three dispatching 
centers for the electrified Northeast Corridor (Boston, New York, and 
Philadelphia). Amtrak also has a consolidated National Operations 
Center in Wilmington, Delaware that monitors and manages all other 
train movements around the Nation. A successful attack on any one of 
the three locations controlling the NEC trains could prevent Amtrak 
from monitoring and dispatching train movements. Amtrak would have to 
shut down all train movements in the Corridor including all commuter 
operations.

  In addition, Amtrak is incurring additional security costs to respond 
to the Code Orange Threat Level. Each Code Orange day costs Amtrak an 
additional $18,000 in overtime cost for security personnel--roughly 
$500,000 for April alone.


                              bus security

  I am particularly concerned with the Administration's poor 
performance in dealing with security in the intercity bus industry. 
Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, over the road bus 
drivers and passengers in the United States have been the targets of 
many serious assaults, including one assault killing seven passengers 
and another assault injuring 33 passengers. In addition, there have 
been at least three other serious over-the-road security breaches. Over 
the same period, no other mode of transportation has experienced as 
many incidents of passenger attacks. These incidents occurred in states 
throughout the country, including Tennessee, Arizona, Utah, Oklahoma, 
Pennsylvania and Vermont.
  These violent incidents point to the immediate need to improve 
security measures for intercity buses and bus terminals. On August 2, 
2002, the President signed into, the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations 
Act which provided $15 million for grants and contracts to enhance the 
security of intercity bus operations. The FY2003 Omnibus Appropriations 
Act provided an additional $10 million for these purposes.
  Despite the timely enactment of funds, the Transportation Security 
Administration has yet to release a single penny. Furthermore, there 
are indications that these funds may not be released until June.
  The Administration's failure to make these funds available in a 
timely manner is inexcusable. Any further delay in releasing the funds 
risks the lives of thousands of Americans whose only mode of 
transportation may be travel by bus. The Administration must take 
immediate action to make the funds available.
  Furthermore, I am gravely disappointed that the Administration's 
recently released plan, Operation Liberty Shield, says nothing about 
buses, the most ubiquitous and, in many ways, the most vulnerable 
public transportation mode. What were the people who drafted Operation 
Liberty Shield thinking about, leaving out such an important mode of 
transportation? In light of the war and its associated security risk, 
the Administration must take action now to release the funds. Releasing 
the funds will allow the intercity bus industry to respond immediately 
to the elevated threat level precipitated by the war.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, only in aviation have we responded to the 
security vulnerabilities of our transportation system. We, in the 
Congress, must pursue vigorous oversight to ensure that we do not have 
another 9/11 tragedy in our ports, highways or railroads.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
and his leadership, particularly on homeland security.
  Next I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), 
a distinguished member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, a Member who has worked long and hard on behalf of 
homeland security.

[[Page H2679]]

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. LAMPSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding to me and giving me this opportunity to come up and join the 
Democratic members of the Homeland Security Committee, the select 
committee, on this amendment that they are trying to put together and 
that certainly needs consideration.
  I was somewhat astounded when I was given the summary of this 
amendment and found what was not included on the bill that was put 
forward by the majority party and became very pleased that we were 
asking for something from the Democratic side as an amendment to that 
bill. It certainly, certainly needs to be given consideration.
  If our recent experience with anthrax, for example, has taught us 
anything, it is that we need to make the necessary investments to 
better identify solutions to these problems and to prepare appropriate 
responses. This comes only after we make science and research 
investments a priority and boost our homeland security funding.
  I know that Dr. John Stobo at the University of Texas Medical Branch 
in Galveston had a vision when they moved to establish a Biosafety 
Level 4 laboratory to do that kind of research. UTMB Galveston's vision 
was validated after the attacks of September 11 and the ensuing anthrax 
tragedy. When completed, that project is going to be one of five such 
laboratories in North America and the first full-size facility on a 
university campus in the United States. The research that they will 
perform in this laboratory will be absolutely invaluable as we continue 
to attempt to solve these problems, whether it be smallpox, anthrax, or 
the next bioterror act that we may not know.
  When I looked at this amendment, I found that there is zero money 
requested for this in the proposal tomorrow and that the Democratic 
amendment is requesting at least $150 million for these funds. Half of 
the funds would go to the CDC and the other half would go to the EPA. 
The funds would be used by agencies to help State health laboratories 
develop capacity to rapidly detect the presence of chemical terrorism 
agents. What a tremendous need we have within our communities, and it 
is astounding to me that we do not appear to be addressing this right 
now.
  Another point that I found in here that took my breath away, 20 
percent of the petrochemical processing capacity of our country is in 
the Ninth Congressional District, immediately south of the district of 
my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner). We are surrounded 
by other petrochemical activity. The Houston Galveston ship channel has 
150 petrochemical facilities up and down the channel, and all of the 
rest that is going on there. We understand from a GAO report that the 
Federal Government has not comprehensively assessed the chemical 
industry's vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks.
  This is one of the things I have talked about since 2 days after 
September 11 when I began to meet with the plant managers of the plants 
and our municipal leaders throughout. Certainly they have done a great 
deal of work. Certainly the communities have reached out and attempted 
to make improvements to our security. And I feel very good about the 
work that has been done. But in this bill for tomorrow we are not 
requesting any more money to give them help, and it does cost if we are 
going to address the problems that they are facing about that security.
  Water and chemical plant security. We are asking for $100 million. 
Again, I am astounded we do not have any request in the supplemental 
tomorrow that we will be considering. We know what happened in my 
district in 1947. The Monsanto chemical plant in Texas City had two 
freighters parked at a port when ammonium nitrate fertilizer exploded 
and blew up both ships and half of the city of Texas City, killing over 
600 people. It was the largest loss of life to firefighters until the 
September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. So we know what can 
happen to these communities, and for us to not give every opportunity 
to address the problems that we are facing, I think is shortsighted.
  If I may ask my colleague, I just received a phone call a few minutes 
ago from my county judge and the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District 
of Texas, asking for the first responder equipment particularly dealing 
with inoperability of equipment. Am I to understand that there is not a 
request to fund the needs that they have for communications capability, 
to be able to communicate between agencies and among agencies when 
there is a disaster?
  Mr. TURNER. It is my understanding that there are no funds in the 
current proposed appropriation supplemental to assist the local 
governments in that purpose.
  Mr. LAMPSON. The fact that the gentleman's committee, and under his 
leadership with the Homeland Security Committee, is asking for $350 
million to help address that problem is most appreciated. And I want to 
assure him that not only will I pass this information on back to the 
people in my congressional district about the needs that they face and 
the effort that the gentleman is making, and all the members of that 
committee are making to change this, but I will work as hard as I 
possibly can in support of this amendment tomorrow. I hope that it will 
be considered and it will be passed into law.
  We need these funds. The lives of our citizens across this country 
depend on it, and I thank the gentleman for his work and commend him 
for it.
  Mr. TURNER. Well, I thank the gentleman for his leadership in this 
area.
  Madam Speaker, I will now yield to another member of the Texas 
delegation, who also represents a significant port in the United States 
and the city of Houston, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell).
  Mr. BELL. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner) for his leadership as the ranking member of the 
Homeland Security Committee and for giving me this opportunity this 
evening.
  Madam Speaker, we as a Nation will pay any price in order to support 
and protect our troops in the line of fire. There is no cost too high 
to protect American lives in the face of tyranny and terrorism. This is 
not a new principle in American government but a promise renewed in the 
hearts and minds of the American people after the horrific events of 
September 11, 2001.

  I think no one in this Chamber would disagree that the world has 
heard our resounding call: Never again. Never again will we handle the 
specter of terror with kid gloves or the dismissive neglect of 
indifference because it is a problem that affects them and not us. This 
is a lesson that we have all learned together, and I would like to 
commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their clear 
commitment to support our troops with the resources they need to 
protect themselves.
  One question still hangs heavy over this body. How do we keep our 
homeland secure? I do not have to tell my colleagues that our 
firefighters and police officers have become citizen soldiers in the 
war on terror, our first line of defense against another September 11. 
Americans have been empowered with a responsibility to protect their 
families and their communities by working with each other to stop acts 
of terror before they happen. The war on terror is a war in which we 
are all on the front lines.
  I submit to this body that Americans on the front line need greater 
resources to get the job done. They need more funding in order to 
protect our homeland. I am particularly concerned about the security of 
American seaports. America's ports are our gateways of commerce to the 
world. Each year nearly 6 million seaborne containers enter our 
Nation's ports, yet only 3 percent, only 3 percent, of the cargo is 
ever physically inspected. The screenings that are performed are often 
carried out without the use of detection aids or with only hand-held 
devices that have limited range and capability.
  This security gap gives groups like al Qaeda over 5 million 
opportunities every year to smuggle a nuclear device or weapon of mass 
destruction into the United States of America. In total, 95 percent of 
the cargo moving into and leaving this country each year passes through 
American ports. The region of Texas I call home has one of the largest 
of these ports. In fact, the Port of Houston receives more foreign 
tonnage than any other port in America. Each year, Houston alone 
receives 7.8 million tons of cargo from Iraq itself, 10

[[Page H2680]]

million tons of cargo from Saudi Arabia, and nearly 5 million tons from 
Algeria, a known state sponsor of terrorism.
  Recently, I had the opportunity to tour the Houston ship channel, 
home to one of the world's largest concentrations of petrochemical 
plants and other critical energy infrastructure. Having had the 
opportunity to see the sheer size of the ship channel, the miles of 
exposed coastline and the sensitive nature of the industry located 
there, it became clear just how daunting a task protecting our 
waterways has become. If a petrochemical plant were to be struck by a 
bomb, we could face a tragedy greater in magnitude than the Chernobyl 
meltdown right in the heart of a major metropolitan area. This is a 
problem we cannot afford to ignore in Houston or anywhere else.
  The Port of New York/New Jersey, the Port of Long Beach, California, 
the Port of Charleston, South Carolina, all three are major American 
ports. All three are located in close proximity to major metropolitan 
areas. And all three are at serious risk of attacks. These ports I have 
mentioned are but a few of the at-risk waterways across America. 
According to the GAO, Tampa Bay is home to Florida's busiest port and 
receives half of Florida's volume of hazardous materials, such as 
liquid petroleum gas, sulfur, and ammonia, all this in close proximity 
to downtown Tampa Bay where thousands of Americans live and work.
  As my colleagues can see, it is critical that we support our port 
authorities and the thousands of shipping companies around the world 
with whom they work by enabling them to do the business of America 
without the constant threat of a terrorist attack.
  The U.S. Coast Guard announced last year that necessary improvements 
to port security will cost $963 million in fiscal year 2004 and as much 
as $4.4 billion over the next 10 years. But since the attacks of 
September 11, Congress has appropriated less than $400 million for port 
security across America. Welcome funding, yes, but far short of where 
we should be given the challenges we face in protecting America's 
borders.
  We must make a commitment in this body to adequately fund port 
security before it is too late. By giving lip service to the problem 
and then not providing our local communities with the resources they 
need to protect our families, we risk undermining our own campaign to 
rid the world of terror and keep the homeland secure.
  How do we explain after the next terrorist attack on American soil 
that our country was willing to spend $80 billion to liberate the 
oppressed people of Iraq but were unable to commit the money necessary 
to protect our homeland against what the CIA has determined is one 
of the greatest vulnerabilities in America today, the threat of attack 
against our own ports?

  We must give our heroes on the home front the same quality of support 
that I know each of us is committed to giving our heroic fighting men 
and women abroad. The threat to our Nation's ports and our communities 
is a clear and present danger that cannot be ignored. The time is now 
to begin fully funding these critical port security needs and it can 
begin now. The homeland security amendment to the wartime supplemental 
appropriations bill, to be offered tomorrow hopefully, calls for $440 
million for port and chemical plant security and for the Coast Guard. 
Pass the amendment. The time is now.
  Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his 
comments and for his leadership on a most critical issue, homeland 
security.
  I now would like to now yield to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Etheridge), who serves as a member of the Homeland Security 
Committee, whose leadership on the committee has been invaluable, and 
whose experience in education brings a unique perspective to the issue 
of our homeland security.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me, and I thank him for his leadership on this committee and his 
leadership on the Homeland Security Committee. It has been invaluable 
and it is an area that we need to spend a lot of time on.
  First responders are our hometown heroes. Their sacrifice and service 
inspire us all. When the Federal Government raises the threat level to 
code orange, like we have seen in the last couple of weeks, and once 
before that when it was raised, these are the men and women that are 
immediately called upon to assume the extra duties and responsibilities 
to help defend our hometowns from unknown threats. Congress has the 
responsibility to back up our local first responders with the funds 
that they need to make the extra security details work.
  Last year I held a series of meetings with first responders across my 
district in North Carolina to assess what their needs were. More than 
100 police officers, sheriffs, firefighters, emergency personnel, and 
others came to those briefings. During these meetings and in the months 
since then, I have heard troubling reports from our frontline forces. 
Despite improvements in security here in Washington at our Nation's 
historic sites and many urban areas, North Carolina's first responders 
still lack an interoperative communications infrastructure, appropriate 
training equipment, and the things they need to respond appropriately.
  Do not get me wrong, we have made progress in coordinating responsive 
training and communications; but at what cost? Police chiefs and county 
sheriffs must decide whether to buy gas masks or bulletproof vests. 
Firefighters have to choose between arson training and learning about 
weapons of mass destruction.

                              {time}  1900

  Public health authorities divert resources from prenatal care to 
smallpox vaccination programs. The Federal Government mandated that 
local and State authorities take the lead in planning and coordinating 
response efforts, and when Congress appropriated funds for first 
responders, the President vetoed the first appropriation and said it 
was too much money. Now we are trying once again to provide additional 
money in the supplemental tomorrow, a bit more money to pay for the 
unfunded mandates ordered by the Federal Government.
  The majority says it is too much money, that States may not be 
spending the money they already have on first responders. Yesterday I 
received a report from the State of North Carolina. It showed that last 
September North Carolina received approximately $7 million for the 
Office of Domestic Preparedness for first responder equipment, and the 
State immediately began to collect and process grant requests. This 
process does take some time. We want to make sure that it is not 
duplicated and we get the best equipment. Believe me, States all across 
the country can use every spare dime they can get. Our cities and 
States do need the money for training equipment, and they do need 
timely information about possible threats, and it is our responsibility 
to put the dollars in to help these first responders. We need to pass 
this amendment tomorrow to help first responders who will protect our 
homes, our communities, our schools and our families.
  We cannot let them down and leave them unprepared.
  I call on the Congress and this Administration to make the training 
and equipping of our nation's first responders a top priority.
  Our first responders are ready and willing to do what it takes to 
ensure the security of their communities, our state and our country.
  However, it is the responsibility of the Administration and Congress 
to make sure that they have the information, training and resources 
necessary to protect the men, women and children of America, as well as 
themselves.
  The American people deserve to live without fear of a terrorist 
attack.
  Parents deserve to send their children to school without fear for 
their safe return. Shoppers deserve to be able to walk into a crowded 
shopping mall without fear that a suicide bomber lurks in their midst, 
waiting for the right moment to strike.
  Passengers deserve to be able to board an airplane without the fear 
that a shoulder-fired missile will bring it down.
  Although no plan can guarantee every individual's safety at any given 
moment, all Americans deserve the right to a reasonable expectation 
that in their daily lives, the proper authorities have taken 
appropriate measures to maximize safety and security.
  Unfortunately, that expectation is not being met today due to a lack 
of leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, America was changed forever by the 9/11 attacks, and the 
American people accept the challenges and difficulties this new era 
presents.
  But the American people deserve to live free from fear, and the 
national leadership

[[Page H2681]]

must provide the means to restore that hope for a secure future.
  Our local first responders are absolutely key to that effort, and 
Democrats are working in Congress to provide the leadership necessary 
to get the job done.
  Again, I want to thank my colleague Congressman Turner for his 
leadership in this most important endeavor, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), a 
freshman Member who served very effectively in the Florida legislature 
and who serves on the Committee of Homeland Security.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I want to 
be very quick and within a minute I would like to share with the 
American public something that is very, very important. The information 
that you are receiving here this evening and the amendment that the 
Democrats will have tomorrow to not only put teeth but to make sure we 
have real homeland security is very, very important.
  As we look at our ports and the Coast Guard, I think we need to go 
far beyond great speeches in front of Coast Guard cutters, and talking 
about how we support our men and women riding in those vessels and 
fighting in helicopters. I would say that with any major incident in 
our ports, not only will we experience a large loss of life, but we 
would also experience quite an interruption in commerce.
  It is very, very important that the American people understand that 
the Coast Guard says they need a billion dollars alone this year to 
secure our ports. We have individuals working at our ports now that do 
not have proper credentials as it relates to some of the shipping 
companies. We know we are very vulnerable in our ports, and I think it 
is important that we make sure that this administration understands 
that it is more than just giving speeches, that it is important that we 
put our money where our mouth is and make sure that we are standing on 
behalf of homeland security.
  This is an everyday issue that Americans care about, and it is an 
everyday issue that we have to respond to, and I am encouraging this 
Congress to support our efforts tomorrow to make sure that we have true 
homeland security.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and our 
subcommittee members for sharing their thoughts and ideas that we have 
as it relates to meaningful homeland security versus just talking about 
what we need to do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida). The time 
of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) has expired.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address 
the House for 5 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Hawaii 
(Mr. Abercrombie) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________