[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.
____________________