[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 22, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9683-S9697]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--Continued
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are on the Homeland Security
appropriations bill. We have two amendments pending for consideration.
It is my understanding a briefing is being held right now and Senators
are expected to be in the Chamber soon to either debate these
amendments or make other comments about the bill.
We encourage those who do have amendments to let us know about them.
We have some indication that there are amendments that will be offered
before we complete action on this bill, but we intend to push ahead and
work as late tonight as the leader permits and complete action on this
bill tomorrow, if possible. That is our intention. We hope to have the
cooperation of all Senators.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
[[Page S9684]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1317
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Nation's eyes have been turned to war
overseas. The country's focus has been on the daily battles in Iraq. On
the news almost daily there have been reports of American soldiers
still dying. While the President arguably says that the mission in Iraq
has been accomplished, the mission to protect our citizens here at home
is far from complete.
Immediately after September 11, 2001, there was a great outcry for
strengthening homeland security. Congress responded, infusing $40
billion into the war on terrorism--including efforts to better protect
our citizens here at home. But since those early weeks after that clear
September morning, the momentum has slowed. The pace has slackened.
Homeland security initiatives are falling behind.
Just last month, former Senator Warren Rudman chaired a task force at
the Council on Foreign Relations that examined investments in police,
fire, and emergency medical teams. This blue ribbon panel included
Nobel laureates, U.S. military leaders, former high-level government
officials, and other senior experts, and was advised by former White
House terrorism and cyber-security chief Richard Clarke. The results of
their examination should shake this Congress from its homeland security
slumber and especially it should shake the White House from its slumber
and from its focus elsewhere.
The task force found that, nearly two years after 9/11, the United
States is drastically underfunding local emergency responders and
remains dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on
American soil, particularly one involving chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear, or high-impact conventional weapons. The panel
concluded that, if the Nation does not take immediate steps to better
identify and address the urgent needs of emergency responders, the next
terrorist incident could be even more devastating than 9/11.
Imagine that, more devastating than September 11, 2001.
The underlying legislation before the Senate is the Fiscal Year 2004
Homeland Security Appropriations bill. It provides more than $28
billion for a variety of programs, from better border security to
natural disaster response efforts. But while this is a step forward,
the legislation does not accomplish enough. It does not provide the
investments in protections that the Nation so desperately needs.
This fact is not the fault of Subcommittee Chairman Thad Cochran or
Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens. The hand that they were
dealt was poor from the start. But that does not mean that this Senate
needs to settle for less than is needed.
The amendment that I have offered would add critical dollars to some
of our Nation's most vulnerable entities. It is a responsible $1.75
billion approach to begin to close the enormous gaps in America's
homeland security. The amendment to which I address my remarks at this
time is about fulfilling our promises to the American people. After 9/
11, Congress passed the Patriot Act. It passed the Maritime
Transportation Security Act. It passed the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act. It passed the Enhanced Border Security Act. And the
President signed these with great fanfare. But when it comes to
securing our homeland, the administration follows the same pattern. The
President seems to be satisfied with rhetoric, which doesn't cost
anything, rather than working with Congress to provide real dollars.
The amendment I offer today is intended to fulfill the promises made
for securing our homeland. It would add a total of $1.75 billion for
critical homeland security programs. The amendment adds: $602 million
for Maritime and Land Security, including port security and transit
security; $729.5 million for first responder funding for our police,
fire and emergency medical personnel, including funding for high threat
urban areas; $238.5 million for security improvements at U.S. borders
with Canada and Mexico; it includes 100 million for air cargo security;
and it includes $80 million for protections at chemical facilities.
With public warnings ringing in our ears from Secretary Ridge that
another terrorist attack is inevitable, some may argue that our
homeland security needs seem endless, and therefore the Congress must
set limits. I agree that they are endless and that Congress must set
limits. That is why this amendment focuses on the specific expanded
homeland security missions that Congress has authorized since 9/11, but
that the administration has yet to adequately fund. Unfortunately, the
budget resolution endorsed by this White House has forced us to exclude
from the bill some funding that both the Congress and the President
have recognized as being real needs. This amendment focuses on those
critical shortfalls. It puts the beam on those critical shortfalls. It
puts the microscope right down to their level.
One of the mysteries about the President's budget is the budget for
the Transportation Security Administration, or TSA. TSA was created by
the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 and was supposed
to focus on securing all modes of transportation. Yet the President's
budget includes only $86 million or 2 percent of the TSA budget for
maritime and land security. Yes, I said 2 percent--just 2 percent of
the TSA budget for maritime and land security. The rest of the
President's budget request is for aviation security and for--you
guessed it--administration. What about securing our ports? What about
securing our trains? What about securing our railroad tunnels, and our
subways? What about buses or securing the trucks that carry hazardous
materials?
In fact, the President's budget requests 2.5 times more for
administering the TSA bureaucracy than he does for securing the
Nation's ports, trains, trucks, and buses.
This amendment would add $602 million for maritime and land
transportation funding. To his credit, Chairman Cochran provided $295
million for these programs. My amendment further enhances the good work
Senator Cochran has begun.
On November 25, 2002, the same day that the President signed the
Homeland Security Act, he also signed the Maritime Transportation
Security Act--MTSA, putting in place significant new standards for
improving the security of our 361 ports around the Nation. On July 1,
the Coast Guard published regulations putting the MTSA into action.
During the Senate Appropriations Committee's homeland security
hearings last year, one witness, Stephen Flynn, noted that the Nation's
seaports:
. . . are the only part of an international boundary that the
federal government invests no money in terms of security. . .
. Most ports, the best you get is a chain link fence with
maybe some barbed wire.
Let me repeat that. The Appropriations Committee of the Senate
conducted hearings last week, anent homeland security. And we heard
testimony from mayors, Governors, and from seven Department heads--I am
talking about Departments in the President's Cabinet--and from FEMA as
well. And one of these witnesses was Stephen Flynn. Here is what he
said about the Nation's seaports. He said:
[They] are the only part of an international boundary that
the federal government invests no money in terms of security.
. . . Most ports, [he said] the best you get is a chain link
fence with maybe some barbed wire.
Comforting? Is that comforting?
Consider that U.S. ports receive 16,000 cargo containers per day and
more than 6 million containers per year. Consider the fact that U.S.
ports are home to oil refineries and chemical plants that process
noxious, volatile chemicals. Consider the additional fact that there
are 68 nuclear powerplants located along U.S. waterways and that the
average shipping container measures 8 feet by 40 feet and can hold
60,000 pounds. Consider, further, that a ship or tanker transporting
cargo can hold more explosives and dangerous materials than could ever
be smuggled in an airplane or a truck crossing a land border.
Yet despite the clear danger, the best port protection the American
people
[[Page S9685]]
have is a chain link fence? It is unfathomable--unfathomable--why we
have not insisted this amendment be signed into law months ago.
This amendment would make sure that more than a chain link fence is
protecting the Nation's ports. Not too much to ask, is it?
The Coast Guard has estimated that it will cost the ports $5.4
billion during the next decade to implement the Maritime Transportation
Security Act standards, including $1.1 billion this year; and yet the
President did not request one thin dime--can you believe it, not one
dime--for port security. The amendment that I will offer, which is at
the desk, would increase port security grant funding from the $150
million contained in the bill by $460 million, thus providing a total
of $610 million for this program.
The Commandant of the Coast Guard testified before the House
authorizing committee on June 3, 2003, about the implementation of the
MTSA legislation. Here is what he said:
The regulatory impact on the maritime industry will be
significant, and the time line for implementing the new
robust maritime security requirements is exceptionally short.
However, the administration, while aggressively supporting Federal
security funding for the aviation industry, has failed in four straight
spending requests to include a single penny--not one red cent--for port
security grants even though 95 percent of all non- North American U.S.
trade enters our 361 ports around the Nation. This is serious.
During our Homeland Security Subcommittee hearings this spring, I
asked Under Secretary Asa Hutchinson why there was no money requested
in the President's budget for port security grants and Mr. Hutchinson
testified that he believed it was the responsibility of the port
industry--the responsibility of the port industry. Yet the port
industry's first priority is moving goods through ports as quickly as
possible because that increases profits. There must be incentives if we
are to realistically expect the ports to improve security.
This year, the Transportation Security Administration received over
$1 billion of applications from the ports for the limited funding that
was approved by Congress last year. There clearly is a demand from the
ports, for help to harden physical security to reduce the Nation's well
documented seaport vulnerabilities. These are vulnerabilities that are
well documented.
The amendment also addresses other important homeland security needs
authorized by the Maritime Transportation Security Act--and yet again
not funded.
The Maritime Transportation Security Act requires that vessel and
port facility owners prepare and submit security plans to the
Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of deterring a
transportation security incident. The Coast Guard serves as the lead
agency to develop a National Maritime Transportation Security Plan and
review all security plans prepared by vessel or facility owners or
operators.
To meet requirements set in the MTSA, vessel and facility owners must
submit security plans to the Coast Guard for review and approval by the
end of calendar year 2003. But, once again, the administration provided
no funding to the Coast Guard for this effort or for tracking
compliance with the plans in its fiscal year 2004 budget request.
In recent testimony, Coast Guard Commandant ADM Thomas H. Collins
acknowledged that the Coast Guard still needs an additional $70 million
and 150 full-time employees by this fall to review and approve more
than 10,000 security plans by vessel and facility owners. My amendment
provides the money.
My amendment also provides $57 million for public transit grants.
According to a Mineta Transportation Institute study, one-third of
terrorist attacks worldwide have been on transportation systems, and
transit systems are the mode most commonly attacked. According to the
study, nine surface transportation systems were the target of more than
195 terrorist attacks from 1997 through the year 2000.
The approximately 6,000 transit agencies in the United States provide
more than 9 billion trips each year representing 43 billion passenger
miles, and yet the administration has provided minimal funding for
transit security.
The General Accounting Office, the GAO, recently reported that:
Insufficient funding is the most significant challenge in
making transit systems as safe and secure as possible.
Mr. President, at just 8 of the 10 transit agencies surveyed, the
General Accounting Office identified the need for security improvements
estimated at $700 million. The General Accounting Office also found
that:
TSA has yet to exert full responsibility for the security
of any transportation mode other than aviation.
The chemical attack on the Tokyo subway system in 1995 is a sobering
reminder of how a terrorist attack on one transit system can affect
human lives, the economy, and confidence in our transit systems. How
many times do we have to witness attacks on transit systems in other
countries before we secure our transit systems?
This amendment would provide $57 million in direct grants to the
Transportation Security Administration to help with that shortfall.
The amendment also would add $15 million to the $10 million already
provided in the bill for intercity bus grants. A study conducted by the
Mineta Transportation Institute, ``Protecting Public Surface
Transportation against Terrorism and Serious Crime,'' found that during
the period 1997 through 2000, 54 percent of the worldwide attacks on
surface transportation systems were against buses or bus terminals.
Almost 800 million people ride over-the-road buses annually, more
than the airlines and Amtrak combined. Intercity buses serve
approximately 5,000 communities daily, compared to roughly 500 each for
the airlines and Amtrak. Intercity buses serve those who truly need
public transportation--rural residents who have no other public
transportation alternatives and urban residents who must rely on
affordable public transportation.
Given the important role that intercity buses play in the Nation's
transportation system and their susceptibility to terrorist attacks,
they must be protected.
One of the most glaring funding deficiencies identified in the recent
Rudman report is the poor support for first responders. The Rudman
report estimated that America will fall approximately $98.4 billion
short of meeting critical emergency responder needs in the next 5
years, if current funding levels are maintained. But the legislation
before the Senate does not even maintain that current funding level.
While the underlying bill provides first responder funding at a level
that is $303 million above the President's request, it is $434 million
below the level that the Congress approved for the current fiscal year.
In the nearly 2 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, States and cities have worked to better protect the Nation. They
have undertaken critical assessments of vulnerabilities. They have
provided specialized training to police officers, firemen, and
emergency medical teams. They have attempted to close as many gaps as
possible to prevent another terrorist attack. But unfortunately, for
many communities, they have had to act without the support of the
Federal Government.
A March 2003 analysis by the U.S. Conference of Mayors reports that
cities are spending an additional $70 million per week on personnel
costs alone, to keep up with security requirements. Mayors and
governors have contacted almost every Member of this Congress, if not
all, practically begging for additional funds to help defray the huge
expenses for homeland security. Their requests come at a time when
cities, counties, and states are in the worst financial shape in
decades. Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn stated earlier this year that
``We've dug deep into our own pockets. Now we really need the help of
the Federal Government.'' This is taken from the Los Angeles Times of
February 23. They have come hat in hand for help, and we ought not turn
our backs on them.
My amendment adds $500 million to the budget of the Office of
Domestic Preparedness for first responders. Specifically, it provides
$250 million for
[[Page S9686]]
State grants, and $250 million for high threat urban areas, bringing
the total for high-threat urban areas to $1 billion. This amendment
provides funds to meet the immediate and growing needs that State and
local first responders have for funds for equipment, training, homeland
security exercises, and planning.
The needs are great.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National
Fire Protection Association, only 13 percent of fire departments have
the equipment and training to handle an incident involving chemical or
biological agents.
Forty percent of fire department personnel involved in hazardous
material response lack formal training in those duties.
Only 10 percent of fire departments in the United States have the
personnel and equipment to respond to a building collapse.
Funds would be used to purchase: Personal protective equipment for
first responders--chemical resistant gloves, boots, and undergarments;
interoperable communications equipment, portable radios, satellite
phones, batteries; detection equipment--equipment, to monitor, detect,
sample, identify and quantify chemical, biological, radiological/
nuclear and explosive agents; medical supplies and pharmaceuticals;
and, training costs and paying overtime costs associated with
attendance at training for emergency responders, emergency managers,
and public officials.
My amendment also provides $79.5 million for grants for interoperable
communications equipment. This bill currently includes no funds
specifically for interoperable communications equipment. This amendment
proposes to add $79.5 million, the same amount that was provided in
fiscal year 2003.
The initial $79.5 million was a small step in starting the process of
integrating and coordinating communications equipment between and among
first responders firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical
personnel--a deficiency uncovered during the 9/11 attacks on the United
States.
Only one-fourth of all fire departments can communicate with all of
their rescue partners. The Council on Foreign Relations' June, 2003
study on homeland security needs estimated that the need for
interoperable communications equipment funding was $6.8 billion over
the next 5 years.
The amendment also provides an additional $150 million for fire
grants. The Senate bill includes $750 million for assistance to
firefighter grants, roughly the same amount as last year. This
amendment would add $150 million for fire grants, which would bring the
total to $900 million, the level authorized. Our fire departments need
this money.
On average, fire departments across the country have only enough
radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift, and breathing
apparatuses for only one third.
In the 3 years this program has been in existence, it has become one
of the best run programs in the Federal Government. This Senate should
fund this program at the authorized level. Our frontline defenders
deserve no less.
In October of 2001, the President signed the Patriot Act which called
for tripling the number of border patrol agents and Customs and
immigration inspectors on the northern border. In May of 2002, the
President signed the Enhanced Border Security Act, which authorized
significant new investments in border patrol agents and facilities. The
goals with regard to Customs inspectors and border facilities cannot be
met with the limited funding that was made available for this bill.
The amendment I have offered adds $100 million for improvements to
our border ports-of-entry. There are 197 ports-of-entry on our Nation's
land borders. Of those, 128 out of 197 are stretched across our 5,525
mile long border with Canada.
The remaining sites are along our highly-trafficked border with
Mexico.
Most facilities along the U.S.-Canada border were constructed either
as part of the Civilian Conservation Corps program during the Great
Depression or in the period between 1950 and 1965. These older
facilities are having an increasingly difficult time meeting the energy
and power requirements of today's technology.
Along the U.S.-Mexico border, traffic both in people and goods has
more than doubled since the last major border infrastructure effort was
launched during the Reagan administration.
Trade with Canada has doubled in the last decade, while trade with
Mexico has tripled during the same time frame. However, the facilities
through which trade must flow have not been expanded or enhanced to
keep pace with this traffic.
A Congressionally mandated study called the ``Ports of Entry
Infrastructure Assessment Study,'' completed over a year prior to the
tragic events of September 11, 2001, identified a growing backlog of
infrastructure needs at our Nation's border crossings. It specifically
identified 822 infrastructure requirements with an estimated gross cost
of $784 million. That report was completed 3 years ago last month--but
Congress has yet to seriously begin to address this growing problem.
Consistent with the Enhanced Border Security Act and legislation
introduced in this body by a bipartisan group of Senators, this
amendment provides $100 million for the new Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection to begin addressing this backlog. The funds provided
in this amendment could be used to replace the trailer--yes, the
trailer--that serves as a border port-of-entry in Easton, ME, or to
complete construction of the San Diego fence along the border with
Mexico which was authorized by Congress in 1997.
My amendment would also add $138.5 million to hire additional border
protection staff to meet the levels authorized in the USA PATRIOT Act.
While funding in the Committee bill will allow the Bureau for Customs
and Border Protection, CBP, to succeed in meeting the Congressionally
mandated staffing goal for the Border Patrol by the end of this fiscal
year, the remaining components of this newly created bureau fall far
short of meeting the authorized target.
The PATRIOT Act authorizes a total of 4,845 legacy Customs,
Immigration and Agriculture inspection personnel along the northern
border by the end of fiscal year 2004. According to the CBP, it will
fall far short of that goal. It estimates that it will only have 3,387
inspection personnel at the many port-of-entry and other facilities
that stretch across the 5,525 mile northern border with Canada. This is
1,458 personnel short of the authorized and required level.
My amendment would provide the $138.5 million estimated to complete
the hiring initiative called for in the PATRIOT Act. The funds would be
used to hire an additional 1,458 inspectors to: enhance our ability to
conduct inspections of people and goods entering our country to ensure
that the people entering the country are authorized to do so; to ensure
that the products in the containers are indeed what they are claimed to
be and that no dangerous foods, meats, or other products are brought
into the country.
Another key area of focus is air cargo security. Most Americans would
be stunned to learn that, under the President's budget proposal, each
airline passenger will be screened before boarding a plane. Each
passenger's baggage will be screened before being loaded on a plane.
But commercial cargo on that same plane is left unchecked.
The amendment would add $100 million to the Transportation Security
Administration's budget. The additional funds proposed in this
amendment would accomplish some key immediate objectives while at the
same time laying the ground work for a more comprehensive, multi-year
plan. Of this amount, $70 million would be provided to immediately
strengthen and expand a number of ongoing TSA activities while the
remaining $30 million would be used to increase research, development
and testing of screening technologies and other systems.
The $70 million would be used for the following purposes:
To immediately deploy personnel to the Customs and Border
Protection's National Targeting Center to develop rules for targeting
suspicious packages on passenger aircraft and, as resources are
provided, all-cargo aircraft; to provide $20 million for approximately
125 inspectors to be devoted to cargo screening. These personnel would
be trained to inspect cargo operations, but in keeping with TSA's
Aviation Operations strategy to cross-train its personnel, they would
be trained for additional duties in future fiscal years; to provide $15
million to advance
[[Page S9687]]
by one-year the TSA plan to expand canine screening teams for limited
cargo screening. These activities would be co-located at airports
currently using TSA canine for screening of U.S. mail, and would work
as a complement to EDS screening at smaller locations; to provide $25
million to fully deploy the ``known shipper'' and profiling programs
for cargo being carried on passenger aircraft; to provide $5 million to
update the risk and vulnerability assessments for cargo operations; to
provide $5 million to launch immediately a pilot program to use
explosive detection system, EDS, machines at select locations to screen
cargo.
The additional $30 million would be added to the currently budgeted
$30 million in TSA's research and development account for air cargo
activities, doubling the total amount available for research and
development within the air cargo pilot program.
Finally, my amendment provides $80 million to begin addressing the
issue of physical security at chemical facilities.
Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution has called the lack of
security at U.S. chemical plants a ``ticking time-bomb.'' The General
Accounting Office has reported that chemical plants remain vulnerable
to a terrorist attack. Using data from the Environmental Protection
Agency, the GAO noted that 123 chemical facilities across the country,
if attacked, could inflict serious damage and expose millions of people
to toxic chemicals and gases.
There are 3,000 chemical facilities in 49 States that, if attacked,
could affect more than 10,000 people each.
The General Accounting Office found that the Federal Government has
not comprehensively assessed the chemical industry's vulnerabilities to
terrorist attacks, nor has the Federal Government adequately addressed
our nuclear vulnerabilities.
The Homeland Security Department is responsible for carrying out
comprehensive assessments of the vulnerabilities of the key resources
and critical infrastructure of the United States. The President's
National Strategy for Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructure
and Key Assets identifies chemical plants as part of the Nation's
critical infrastructure. We are talking about chemical plants.
Unfortunately, this administration has paid lipservice to the issue
by saying that the Homeland Security Department will take the lead in
managing vulnerability assessments of U.S. chemical facilities, but--b-
u-t--no funding is identified in this budget to do just that.
When I asked Secretary Ridge who was responsible to secure these
facilities, he testified that he thought that securing chemical
facilities was the responsibility of the chemical industry. Frankly, I
do not believe our communities would be satisfied to wait for the
administration to wake up to this danger.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that it will cost $80
million to conduct vulnerability assessments for chemical plants. This
amendment I have offered would provide those resources.
Protecting this Nation's communities is not easy. Protecting this
Nations communities is not cheap. And protecting this Nation's
communities cannot wait. After 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act,
the Maritime Transportation Security Act, the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa
Entry Reform Act and the President signed all of these with great
fanfare. But the President has done little to fulfill the promise of
those laws. Now the Senate has before it the funding legislation that
will either fulfill the promise of those acts or continue to leave the
Nation vulnerable.
We will hear the same old mantra in opposition to this amendment that
money cannot possibly solve the problems facing homeland security. I
agree that money cannot solve all of our problems but if we fail to
invest sufficient funds, if we fail in the effort to protect our people
as best we can, we will never even begin to address them. The gaps in
our protections and preparations will continue to grow. We all know
these caps exist. And, to be sure, if we know where those gaps are, so
do the terrorists know where those gaps are. The American people
believe that we here in Washington are taking care of the problem. We
must make every effort to close those gaps.
In just a few weeks, America will pause to remember the second
anniversary of the moments when the airplanes struck the World Trade
Centers, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania field. We again will
remember the mothers and fathers, the brothers and sisters, the
firefighters, the police officers, the ambulance drivers. We will
remember all of those who lost their lives in those tragic moments. And
we should remember those who saved our lives when they sent that plane
into the Pennsylvania fields. But as we remember the lives of all
these, we owe them more than high-sounding rhetoric. We owe them our
best judgment. We owe them rational, responsible action. We owe them a
legacy that may truly save lives and prevent another terrorist attack
from happening.
I urge all Members to be mindful of their solemn duty to ``provide
for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity'' as we debate this
important legislation.
I have gone to considerable lengths to speak concerning my amendment.
I urge Senators to support the amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that certain Senators have their names added
as cosponsors: Senators Lieberman, Cantwell, and Stabenow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BYRD. And I welcome the cosponsorship of other Senators--all
Senators for that matter. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, first, I wish to thank the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia for his cooperation in the development of
this bill that is now before the Senate. His assistance and
participation in the hearings, the review of the President's budget
request, our meetings with administration officials to fully understand
the priorities as they saw them, and, in many ways, his experience and
judgment in helping guide the development of this bill were very
essential to the success we had in getting it to this point. His
support in getting it through the committee and subcommittee was
essential and very important.
This amendment, as the distinguished Senator has pointed out, will
add money for many different areas of spending in the legislation that
we have presented. Of course, it is because there are many needs there.
There are many ways we can allocate and spend resources to try to
upgrade our capability of protecting our Nation's homeland. So there is
no end to the list of ways we could spend additional funds.
What we have tried to do, though, is be guided by the limitations
that have been imposed on the committee by the budget resolution. We
have a limited amount of money to spend in this bill. In fact, the
amount we have been allocated to spend is $1 billion more than the
President's budget request that was submitted to Congress earlier. So
this bill provides $29.326 billion. We have tried to allocate it among
all the competing needs that we have come to understand through our
review of the budget request and the information we have been able to
obtain as to what our needs are and what the highest priorities are,
and that is what this bill reflects: the judgment of the Appropriations
Committee of the priorities that exist and how we can best use the
amount of money that is allocated to this committee for this next
fiscal year, keeping in mind that we have already appropriated funds in
the year we are in now, fiscal year 2003.
We have also added a substantial amount of money for homeland
security in the supplemental appropriations bill that was just recently
passed by the Senate and signed by the President. Therefore, since this
amendment proposes to add another $1.75 billion to the bill that is
before us with no offsetting suggestion of where the money would come
from, I will be constrained to make a point of order against the
amendment because it provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's
allocation in violation of the Budget Act. Before doing that, let me
make a few observations about the Senator's comments on some specific
provisions in the bill.
[[Page S9688]]
Facilities along the land borders, which the Senator discussed, are
maintained under the General Services Administration, and funds for
upgrading, maintaining, and replacing facilities are funded through the
General Services Administration and the appropriations bill that has
that as part of its jurisdiction.
This committee does not have GSA jurisdiction. What we do have is the
responsibility of trying to accommodate the deployment of facilities to
implement the U.S. visitor and immigrant status indicator technology.
This is a new program. It is to be deployed upon land ports of entry,
and funds are included in the committee bill for that purpose.
In addition, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has
undertaken to hire additional inspectors to be deployed on these
borders, to enforce the new rules and to better protect us from people
who come across the border who may be a threat to the security of our
homeland.
Our indications from the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection are
that over 4,000 inspectors have been added to the workforce since
September 11, 2001. That has increased coverage at these ports of entry
by 25 percent. Over 2,600 inspectors are on the northern border,
compared to about 1,600 prior to September 11. There are 613 Border
Patrol agents who are assigned to the northern border compared to 368
before September 11. Commissioner Bonner says he plans to have 1,000
agents on the northern border by October of this year. So when the new
agents who are funded in this bill are counted, are included, there
will be over 11,600 Border Patrol agents in fiscal year 2004. That is
funding already in this bill.
We added additional staffing in the wartime supplement. We put in the
supplemental $75 million for additional northern border and maritime
ports of entry personnel. This was in addition to the money that was
previously appropriated for this fiscal year for new personnel. We also
included $25 million to transfer Border Patrol agents to the northern
border. It is an important new undertaking, and we are cooperating with
the administration in trying to meet those needs.
The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection can only hire so many
people in any one year. This bill includes the maximum number of new
border agents who can be absorbed in one year.
We also think it is important to preserve the Department's
flexibility to assess its staffing needs nationwide. We should not come
in and say they have to hire 1,000 more than they planned to hire this
year. We have to leave to the good judgment of the administrators how
they can absorb and find the qualified people to hire, how they can
train them in their new duties and deploy them to the places where they
can be used. I think it would be a mistake at this point for the Senate
to try to superimpose our judgment about a detail of that kind.
We have the same goal. We are on the same team with this
administration. We have to listen to the statements and suggestions
they make to us about the funds they can use and what they need to do
their job within the limits that we have. We have to allocate the funds
according to the priorities as we see them.
Up to this point in time, it is the judgment of the committee at
least that the funding we have made available for border security
agencies, for personnel to carry out the missions of the USA PATRIOT
Act, which the Senator mentioned, and other authorizing legislation is
funded in the bill to the extent that it is possible to be funded in
the bill.
In the case of the Transportation Security Administration, the
additional funding suggested in the amendment is $100 million for
screening of air cargo. First, the authorizing committee assessed the
needs for new authorities and how the responsibilities for screening
air cargo would be changed to meet the new threats. Congress responded
by passing the Air Cargo Security Improvement Act, S. 165. It
authorizes the development and deployment of something called a known
shipper database, strengthening security enforcement and compliance
measures for indirect air carriers and implementing mandatory security
programs for all cargo carriers.
The Transportation Security Administration has undertaken a
comprehensive, strategic plan for air cargo security. It is based on
threat assessment and risk management.
As I understand it, there are three elements to the approach of the
Transportation Security Administration. They strengthen the current
known shipper program to verify shipper legitimacy. They have developed
a cargo prescreening and profiling system that targets shipments based
on a set of guidelines to indicate which shipments may be suspicious.
They have a targeted inspection system to identify suspicious cargo
utilizing explosive detection systems, explosive trace detection,
canine detection, and other approved methods for inspecting air cargo.
This comprehensive approach is consistent with the Department's
approach in securing containers that cross our borders by all modes of
transportation, and the funding that was requested in the President's
bill has been respected. The bill we have before the Senate provides
$60 million. Ironically, it is $30 million more than the President
requested for this function.
The Transportation Security Administration, according to my
understanding, can use this money. But this amendment that has been
offered by the Senator from West Virginia would add an additional $100
million in addition to what is already in the bill. I am not sure the
administration can use that and use it effectively.
The amendment has additional money for grants for public transit
agencies, for enhancing security against chemical and biological
threats. We already have $71 million for the Science and Technology
Directorate to develop and deploy chemical, biological, and nuclear
sensor networks throughout the country, including public transit
facilities. That would duplicate and be over and above what is already
being spent to try to make sure that we deploy the right kind of
defenses to this kind of threat.
Again, I think it is important for us to work with the administration
and say: Okay, we have so much money that has been allocated to us to
spend for homeland security. How can we best spend that money right
now? How much do they need this year? What can they use? What are the
highest priorities? Where do we need to spend the money first?
The amendment the Senator has offered also increases port security
grants by $460 million, as he pointed out. We already have $150 million
in the bill for port security grants, and this is in addition to $365
million provided in 2002 and 2003.
Of the $365 million already provided by the Congress, only $260
million has been obligated by the administration. So think about this:
We have a proposal to add $460 million to an account where the money is
still there and has not been obligated that has previously been
appropriated. How much can be spent is something that has to be taken
into account as well, not how much we can appropriate. That is not
going to be a measure of the success of this bill or whether or not it
has been thoughtfully expended to protect our security. We have to make
sure it can be used and that it can be used thoughtfully, consistent
with a plan that has been developed by the administration.
The Transportation Security Administration can only obligate about
$150 million a year because assessments of ports have to be conducted,
they have to be given some kind of priority, and then an application
process by the ports for the funds has to be analyzed, assessed, and
careful decisions need to be made. It cannot be just a rush to apply
for a grant: Hey, they have a new fund in Washington. If you are a port
director, if you get your application in now and put pressure on the
administration, you may get some funds.
Will it be consistent with the overall national plan? Will it be
targeted where the threats are the most imminent and most troublesome,
where the money really needs to be spent? Are
[[Page S9689]]
other agencies going to be able to take up the slack in helping to deal
with threats that are known to exist in our ports?
There is a capacity only to spend so much money at one time. That is
the point. The rush to spend money can put the agency in disarray, can
give a false sense of security to the people in the country, saying,
look, we spent $460 million in addition to what had already been
appropriated. But that may not actually help improve our security.
There is no doubt there will be a need for these funds later. There
will be a need to increase security at our ports over and above what we
are doing in this fiscal year or next fiscal year--and not just in
ports but in all modes of transportation. But we need to take a
measured, thoughtful approach, and weigh the funding provided for the
security of our Nation's homeland security needs. That is what we tried
to do, take a balanced approach and make an assessment based on
limitations we have and the realities we face.
There is a proposal in this amendment to add $70 million to the Coast
Guard operating expenses account to increase the total funding of the
Coast Guard. The bill already provides $4.719 billion for Coast Guard
operating expenses. This is $12 million more than the President has
asked for operating expenses, excluding environmental compliance and
restoration, and reserve training, which are funded separately.
Included in the bill for acquisition, construction, and improvements
is the amount of $1.035 billion which is $238 million above the
President's budget request.
Funding to implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA)
was not requested in the President's budget because that Act had not
been passed until after the President's budget was prepared. No request
was made for funding to implement MTSA in the fiscal year 2003
supplemental either. We know funding for the implementation of the MTSA
is a priority for the Coast Guard. If we had additional funds
available, we would agree to increased funding in fiscal year 2004. But
the bill has been very generous to the Coast Guard. We believe funding
for the implementation of MTSA should be included in next year's budget
request by the President.
The Office for Domestic Preparedness is targeted in this amendment
with a funding increase. Mr. President, $729.5 million is provided in
this amendment to increase funding for grants to State and local
governments.
One of the first calls I made when I realized it was going to be my
obligation to chair this subcommittee was to Warren Rudman, our former
colleague from New Hampshire, who has been, with Gary Hart, part of a
study to assess our homeland security needs. They had published reports
and made some presentations in New York, Council on Foreign Relations,
and other places.
One of the things I remember former Senator Rudman suggesting to me
is, it is impossible to know precisely what is needed and how much it
will cost. That is something I have kept in mind.
The fact is, this is not an exact science. We have to use our
judgment, make choices, understand that we cannot do everything at
once. What we are trying to do is maintain a base level of preparedness
through this program.
The Department is going to be better able to assess true needs once
the States have had a chance to submit their updated homeland security
strategies. We cannot just assume right now the States can identify all
of the areas where they need to spend the money, which local
governments continue to have needs, and which ones ought to be funded
first.
In my judgment, we run the risk of being irresponsible if we increase
funding over and above an amount that can logically and systematically
be provided through the grant program to State and local governments.
We will have provided through the funds recommended in this bill
almost $9 billion through the Office for Domestic Preparedness and the
firefighters assistance grants since September 11. A lot of money has
been spent already. In addition to those expenditures and the funding
in this bill, the Senator suggests we ought to spend another $729.5
million.
We are suggesting the funds appropriated in this bill, in this
account, for this fiscal year, are a responsible level of funding for
first responders, given the other needs and other demands that come
under the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security.
The amendment also suggests we earmark $80 million for information
analysis and infrastructure assessment, a directorate, to conduct
assessments for chemical facilities. I am impressed with the concerns
reflected in this suggestion. We do not have funding made available to
individual industries involved in the chemical business to make these
assessments. I am not enough of an expert in that business to know the
assessments that have already been made and the security arrangements
that many of these businesses and industries already have. One thing we
need to keep in mind is that self-interest has motivated business and
industries, and anyone who owns a business or a home should do what
they can to protect themselves, to be sure their workers are protected,
to be sure their families are protected. We all feel that obligation.
It is not like everyone has been assuming they had no responsibilities
for self-protection.
Businesses and industries have done a great deal, invested huge sums
of money, to protect their own assets.
The suggestion is we need to give them more money to do some more
analysis, to do some more assessments.
There may be a need for additional critical infrastructure
assessment; however, this bill already provides $293.9 million for key
asset identification, field assessments of critical infrastructures,
and key asset protection implementation to help guide and support the
development of protective measures to improve the security of
industrial facilities and assets.
Of the amount provided for critical infrastructures, $199.1 million
is made available for critical infrastructure and vulnerability
assessments of the highest priority infrastructures and assets. But we
need the benefit of the advice of the administration, those who are in
charge of the programs, to tell us what those are. This amendment that
is offered by my friend from West Virginia says it is the chemical
industry. That is the only earmark in this part of the bill--$80
million for chemical facilities. There may be other facilities that are
more vulnerable or that would cause more damage and displacement of
American businesses than the chemical facilities would if they were
under a threat of terrorist attack.
The priorities that have to be made and assigned have to be based on
a combination of factors: threat, vulnerability, and risk analysis. And
we have to leave that up to the administration. I don't feel competent
to make that kind of decision. I don't know of any Senator, if this
amendment were to be voted on this afternoon, who could just walk in
here and decide should that be an earmark or should it not. But it is
folded into this big amendment and we are asked to decide whether to
target $80 million for just these kinds of facilities. Who is to know
whether that is a good decision or not, if they have not been through
the hearings, they have not had the opportunity to assess the other
options?
So I think it is an unfair choice that we present to other Senators,
to have them make that decision right now. Why can't the administration
make that decision? I think they are better suited to make that
decision than we are right now. We have to work with them and not make
prejudgments.
The prioritization is going to be based on a lot of factors. There
are 14 critical infrastructure areas--including the chemical sector--5
key asset categories that further break down into about 99 distinct
segments, all of which must be considered based on changing threat
assessments. So this is not necessarily an effective way to improve our
Nation's security, just to earmark money for one particular kind of
industry requiring a specific amount of funds to be spent. Why not $180
million? Why not just $40 million? Where does $80 million come from? I
don't know. Who knows?
So without the corresponding analysis that helps advise the Senate,
it is a mistake for us to be asked to make this kind of choice.
We are telling the terrorist organizations, aren't we, that we are
going to spend the money in this sector? We are going to target this
sector and emphasize it and make it a high priority, but
[[Page S9690]]
not the others? Is that a good way to make decisions in this area or
should we let the administration and the infrastructure protection
experts decide where the threats really are? What does the intelligence
show as to where the threats are? These need to be taken into account.
This amendment, adding $1.75 billion to the bill, violates the Budget
Act because it does not offset the spending, it exceeds the
subcommittee's allocation that is given to us, and at the appropriate
time I will be constrained to make a point of order against the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know we have been notified that one
Senator is on the way over here to speak on this amendment before the
Senator makes his point of order. We have at least one, maybe two
Senators who wish to speak on this amendment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senator Cochran has said there is no end to
the list of homeland security needs. He is absolutely correct on that.
We could list these security needs from now until Kingdom come.
Additional needs can be found. So he is correct. But that does not mean
the amendment I have offered is excessive. It does not mean the
amendment is excessive. It is targeted to specific activities that
Congress has approved.
As I said in the beginning, I named several pieces of legislation
that have been approved and signed into law by the President, some of
them with great fanfare. So Congress has approved these acts, and the
President has signed them into law.
The chairman is correct in stating the progress we have made in
hiring Border Patrol agents and inspectors. But that leaves us nearly
1,500 inspectors short of the goal established in the PATRIOT Act. The
President signed that law.
Are we serious or are we not serious about meeting the goals set
forth in these acts? My amendment would provide the resources to meet
the goals that have been set forth in the acts by Congress, the acts
that have been signed by the President.
It has also been noted that the bill already includes $150 million
for port security grants. But the Coast Guard has estimated that it
will cost $1.1 billion in just the first year for the ports to
implement the security plan that the Coast Guard issued on July 1,
pursuant to the Maritime Transportation Security Act.
Who signed that act? The President signed it. Who issued the
regulations? The Coast Guard. Are they serious or not about port
security? Is the President serious? The amendment would result in less
than $1 billion of total funding. This is less than the Coast Guard's
$1.1 billion estimate.
Our distinguished chairman has said he tried to include a base level
of funding for grants to equip and train our police, fire, and medical
personnel. And I compliment the chairman. He has done a masterful job
in writing the provisions in the bill we have before us, a masterful
job in distributing the limited amounts that have been provided to the
chairman and to the committee for distribution. He has sought to
exercise good judgment. He has done so--with the limitations.
The problem is, we do not have enough funds to appropriately allocate
to meet the needs of the country. But I do not believe that
establishing a base level of funding is enough. When a nonpartisan
organization such as the Council on Foreign Relations estimates a $98
billion shortfall over the next 5 years, I simply cannot understand why
the committee funding level is enough. It is $434 million below the
level available in fiscal year 2003.
With regard to funding chemical facilities security, the chairman
notes there is significant funding in the bill for securing critical
infrastructure. Yet, nearly 2 years after 9/11, we have no details--
none--from the administration describing how these funds would be used.
Secretary Ridge testified to the subcommittee that he believes that
securing chemical facilities is the responsibility of the chemical
industry.
I do not believe we should continue to wait for the administration to
get its act together. We should not allow the budget resolution to
artificially limit our ability to address known vulnerabilities in this
country. Our citizens do not know about budget resolutions. Our
citizens do not know about 302(b) allocations. But they do know they
feel vulnerable to terrorist attacks that Secretary Ridge has said are
inevitable.
Mr. President, the full committee conducted careful and extensive
hearings last year. We had seven Department heads here before the
committee. The committee membership was there. The committee hearings
were well attended. Senator Stevens and I carefully selected witnesses
to appear before those hearings. There were Governors who appeared.
There were mayors who appeared. There were members of county
commissions who appeared. First responders appeared. Firemen,
policemen, health personnel appeared at those hearings. And we have
gone over those hearings carefully. The staff has gone over those
hearings and painstakingly gleaned from the rich testimony that was
submitted by these public officials and public servants. Based on those
and subsequent hearings, we decided that these are needs that ought to
be addressed. And so I have tried to address these needs in the
amendment.
As I say, the amendment adds $1.75 billion. That would fund 42 hours
of the Defense Department expenditures. The Defense Department will be
spending $1 billion a day on the military--$1 billion a day. They are
spending a billion dollars a week in Iraq. Why can't we spend $1.75
billion on the protection of our own people, and our industries here,
the protection of our own infrastructure; $1.75 billion to defend the
American people, to defend our infrastructure, to defend our ports, to
meet the needs of our ports, $1.75 billion? We spend a $1 billion every
24 hours on our defense budget. Yet when it comes to defending this
country, defending its infrastructure, then we say it is too much.
I hope Senators will support the motion to waive the point of order.
As I close my remarks at this point, I thank the distinguished chairman
for his characteristic courtesy and also for his proficiency, his
professional handling of this bill and the hearings. He attended the
hearings, started them on time, and asked incisive questions. He is
always fair to those on the minority side. I have nothing but praise
for him. And I thank the cosponsors of the amendment. I must state
again, however, that I feel the need for adding appropriations as I am
attempting to do here.
A stitch in time saves nine. There is no question in my mind but that
we are underfunding the homeland security needs. The Senator has done
the best he could with the limited amount of moneys, but there is no
good reason why we can't add moneys to this bill. We have to overcome
the point of order, of course. There is a 60-vote point of order. That
is difficult. But Senators may come to rejoice in having voted for this
amendment. Who knows?
I see the distinguished Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the ranking
member of the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee and
of the full committee, the Senator from West Virginia, for his
constancy in sounding the alarm. He is the Paul Revere of the homeland
security debate. Because every time we come to the floor to debate and
consider provisions that we believe will make our country safer, the
Senator from West Virginia is there sounding the alarm.
This time I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will
respond to that alarm which he has once again sounded, because his
amendment reflects a full and complete understanding of what we know,
what the experts tell us is absolutely essential to meeting the
homeland security needs of our Nation.
As has already been referred to in many different settings, the
amendment the Senator presents to us contains the best thinking of
people who
[[Page S9691]]
have considered our vulnerabilities and have honestly assessed what it
will cost so we can look into the eyes of our constituents and say: We
have done the best we knew to do.
Recently the independent Homeland Security Task Force of the Council
on Foreign Relations, a task force chaired by former Senator Warren
Rudman, issued its third report regarding the state of our homeland
defense. While the report noted that we had made progress and that
positive action in a number of areas had occurred since September 11,
there was still much to be done and we remained woefully unprepared.
The report, ``First Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously
Unprepared,'' says it all in its title. It reminds us as to how much
work we truly have in front of us if we intend to address these needs
honestly and to equip our frontline homeland defenders with the
resources they desperately need.
Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared
The United States has not reached a sufficient national
level of emergency preparedness and remains dangerously
unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil,
particularly one involving chemical, biological,
radiological, or nuclear agents, or coordinated high-impact
conventional means.
How much more specific and dramatic a conclusion from independent
experts do we need to have before we act to pass overwhelmingly the
amendment that has been presented to us?
The report also emphasizes the pivotal and primary role our first
responders play in our national homeland defense:
America's local emergency responders--
We are talking about our police officers, our firefighters, our EMTs,
and others who are on the front line, who need to be given the
resources that will equip them to prevent horrific attacks, as well as
to respond--
will always be the first to confront a terrorist incident and
will play the central role in imagining its immediate
consequences. . . . the United States--
Namely, the U.S. Government, not the New York State government, or
the New York City government, or the Buffalo government, or the West
Virginia government, but the United States Government--
has both a responsibility and a critical need too provide
them [our first responders] with equipment, training, and
other necessary resources to do their jobs safely and
effectively.
Again, I don't know how much more specific we need to be. The efforts
of these first responders in the minutes and hours following an attack
will be critical to saving lives, reestablishing order, and preventing
mass panic.
The report speaks about the heroic police and fire professionals who
entered the World Trade Center on September 11. They acknowledge what
all of us saw: that our emergency responders will be there; they will
answer the call; they will perform their duties. What will we do for
them?
In providing just a few examples of the needs of these brave police
officers and firefighters and EMTs that are unmet, I have picked a few
very representative, dramatic examples from the report:
Two-thirds of our fire departments do not meet the
consensus fire service standard for minimum safe staffing
levels.
On average, fire departments across the country have only
enough radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift, and
breathing apparatuses for only one-third. Only 10 percent of
fire departments in the United States have the personnel and
equipment to respond to a building collapse.
Most States' public health labs still lack basic equipment
and expertise to respond adequately to a chemical or
biological attack. Seventy-five percent of State laboratories
report being overwhelmed by too many testing requests.
Most cities do not have the necessary equipment to
determine what kind of hazardous materials emergency
responders may be facing.
Police departments in cities across the country do not have
the protective gear to safely secure a site following an
attack using weapons of mass destruction.
I read these statistics, but I also know firsthand from speaking to
police officers and firefighters, police chiefs and fire commissioners,
and others throughout New York who tell me exactly what we were reading
here from this report.
Now, I have to say it is troubling to me that, while we know we have
not done enough to equip and fund and provide the resources needed by
our first responders, we are seeing, because of budget constraints,
cities and counties cutting back on their personnel. According to the
International City-County Management Association, the average number of
full-time, paid police employees for jurisdictions between 250,000 and
500,000 residents, today, is 16 percent below the figure for 2001. Why
is anyone surprised by that? We have seen countless stories about the
budget cutbacks that States and counties and cities are experiencing.
Police departments and fire departments are not immune. In the city
of New York, after the heroic, incredible performance of these brave
firefighters, they watched helplessly as fire stations were closed. So
this is something that we know is happening. So not only are we failing
to fully fund our first responders, we are seeing the numbers cut back.
When you think about what this report tells us and what the estimate
is as to what is necessary for us to protect ourselves, clearly, we are
asking that we honestly assess where we are and the funding that is
needed. The report says we need approximately $100 billion over the
next 5 years--approximately $20 billion a year for 5 years. We spend $5
billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are asking for 4 months of
the expenditures of those two military actions and postconflict
activities to make sure we are safe here at home.
These preliminary figures are based on the assessments that are
coming directly from first responders and from communities. They were
developed in partnership with the Concord Coalition and the Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessment. It may be conservative, but it is
the best assessment we could find.
First, it assumes, however, that State and local governments will
continue to spend somewhere between $26 billion and $76 billion of
their own funds for homeland security over the next 5 years.
Second, in looking at specific needs, particularly the need for a
communications system that actually works and includes everybody, the
task force erred on the side of conservative figures they obtained from
communications policy experts.
Third, many law enforcement associations could not even assess their
own needs. They don't have time to stop and do a survey or try to hire
a consultant. So they did the best they could in assessing what they
thought their needs were. Clearly, as the task force has pointed out,
we should have a thorough national needs assessment. Under Senator
Byrd's leadership, he did hold very thorough hearings out of which we
got some specific information, and we need to continue a comprehensive
needs assessment so that we do know what our needs are so that we can
better plan how to meet them.
We certainly would not do for our men and women in uniform what we do
for our men and women in uniform at home. I have the honor of serving
on the Armed Services Committee. It is a painstaking process to
determine what our troops need and how to best plan that they can be
protected. I am very proud of that process.
I think it is time we did the same for our front-line defenders, our
soldiers in the war against terrorism here at home--primarily our
police officers, our firefighters, and our EMTs.
Among the many things we need to be doing, the task force concludes--
and I agree--is to create those interoperable communications systems so
that first responders can communicate seamlessly across borders,
between police and firefighters, and certainly across borders of
jurisdictions. We need to extend nationally the Emergency 911 system. I
am very proud to be working with my colleague from Montana, Senator
Burns, on groundbreaking legislation to extend the E-911 system. I
think it will certainly move us forward as long as we fund it.
We need to enhance our urban search and rescue capabilities. We need
to enhance our public health preparedness, particularly by
strengthening and expanding the quality and number of laboratories that
can track diseases, that can quickly diagnose some kind of biological,
chemical, or radiological event.
[[Page S9692]]
This report reflects what I hear from all over New York and, of
course, from all over the country, whether you are in Los Angeles,
where every time the terror alert goes to orange, it costs that city
$1.5 million a week and another $1 million a week to protect the Los
Angeles International Airport; or whether you are in Denver, a city
that has incurred many millions of dollars for emergency preparedness
and has purchased mobile emergency equipment but still doesn't have an
adequate communications system; or whether you are in Douglas County,
NE, which needs resources to buy protective suits for first responders,
this is a national problem. Certainly in New York, I know firsthand how
inadequately funded many of our brave men and women are.
I know that under the leadership of the chairman of the Homeland
Security Appropriations Subcommittee, whom I commend, the committee has
worked very hard to come up with a good bill and, given the budgetary
constraints under which the committee has operated, they have done an
incredible job.
The problem is that the budget resolution we adopted last spring did
not adequately reflect the real costs of homeland security. That is why
the Senator from West Virginia has an amendment which more honestly
assesses those needs. It provides an additional $1.7 billion: $729.5
million for first responders; $602 million for maritime and land
security; $238 million for border security; $100 million for air cargo
security; and $80 million for chemical facility security.
It is hard to argue with the EPA's own figures that we have 123
chemical facilities located throughout the Nation that have toxic
worst-case scenarios where more than 1 million people would be in the
so-called vulnerable zone and could be at risk of exposure to a cloud
of toxic gas.
Remember the terrible accident in Bhopal, India? Remember that? We
have 123 chemical facilities that could produce this kind of
extraordinary horror.
We have 600 facilities that could threaten between 100,000 and 1
million people, and 2,300 more that would threaten between 10,000 and
100,000 people in these so-called vulnerable zones.
When I read statistics such as that, it has to make one feel
vulnerable, and it certainly makes me, as a Senator with responsibility
for my constituents, sick at heart. I do not think any of us want to
see these scenarios ever come true and, thank goodness, we have been
spared that since September 11.
But that is not the way a great country plans to defend itself. If
that were the case, we could have shut down our entire military. After
the War of 1812, we could have just said forget it. After the Civil
War, we could have said forget it. We could say we do not think we will
ever have anything bad in the world happen again, so let's just send
everybody home. Let's just let the tanks rust. Let's just give up
preparing for the worst-case scenario which will more than likely make
it possible for us to avoid such an occurrence.
That is what we are doing when it comes to homeland security. The
Congressional Budget Office estimated it will take $80 million to
conduct vulnerability assessments associated with our chemical plants.
This amendment provides the money for that purpose.
Regarding the first responder funding in the Byrd amendment, there is
additional money for State and local grants, $250 million, and I
especially appreciate an additional $250 million for high-threat urban
area grants; $150 million for FIRE Act grants so we can fund the
program fully at the authorized level; and, finally, $79.5 million for
the interoperable communications equipment I have talked about in this
Chamber so many times since September 11.
We learned tragically that our police and fire departments could not
talk with each other. We learned that people coming to our rescue to
assist us could not communicate with the New York City police and fire
departments.
Later in the debate, I will talk about State and local grants and how
important they are and how strongly I believe the Department of
Homeland Security and Secretary Ridge should disburse those funds using
a threat base rather than a per capita formula. Right now I want to
underscore how important it is to get more money into this high-threat
urban area category.
In January, I gave a speech at the John Jay College of Criminal
Justice in New York City. In that speech, I made some recommendations
and released a survey about what I had found as I surveyed cities and
counties throughout my State: Seventy percent of New York cities and
counties had not received any Federal homeland security funding since
September 11. Since January, some money has come forward; more has been
appropriated.
But I was in Buffalo, NY, on Sunday speaking with the mayor. They
have not received a penny of the money we have appropriated. It is
either tied up in Washington or it is tied up in the State capital.
Either explanation is, to me, unacceptable. We need to do more, and
in that speech I called for a domestic defense fund.
In March, I proposed that we provide direct funding and we include $1
billion for high-threat urban areas. Later that month, I offered an
amendment to the budget resolution that would have provided funding for
the domestic defense fund, including the $1 billion for high-threat
urban areas for fiscal year 2003. Unfortunately, the amendment was
narrowly defeated but at least we began a dialog and a debate about
high-threat areas with critical infrastructure, with dense populations.
We are making some progress and, in fact, the supplemental we
considered for funding the action in Iraq in April did include $700
million for high-threat urban areas. I thank my colleagues for that
funding. I think we all recognize how critical that funding is.
The Department of Homeland Security has begun to allocate high-threat
funding based on factors such as credible threat, vulnerability,
population, mutual aid agreements, and identified needs of public
agencies. And many communities, not just New York and Washington but
Houston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, Kansas City, New Orleans,
Memphis, Cleveland, Charleston, among others, across our country have
received this high-threat funding. This will help us shore up our
defenses against our most vulnerable targets.
Regarding New York, I would give anything if terrorists did not have
such an interest in New York but we have to accept that reality. New
York is such a symbol of our Nation. It is such an incredibly diverse,
dynamic place, the most fascinating and exciting city in the world, and
it is going to draw that kind of attention. Therefore, we need the
support we have been getting and that the Byrd amendment will provide
in additional funding that, believe me, we can put to good use.
In recent articles that have appeared in national newspapers, such as
USA Today, I read about communities that got homeland security funding
and did not know what to do with it. I said: If you really do not know
what to do with the money, send it to New York; we have more needs than
we can possibly meet.
If we are serious about defending our Nation, then we have to be
serious about putting money behind that commitment. What the Byrd
amendment does is to say very straightforwardly: We have not done
enough. We may have done all we could within the constraints of the
budget resolution, and for that I commend the chairman and the ranking
member, but the budget resolution was inadequate.
We do not have a budget resolution for our military and occupational
expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are not even in the budget.
There is not one penny. We passed a $398 billion defense budget last
week and there is not one penny for Iraq and Afghanistan.
We did not worry about the budget resolution when it came to
supporting our troops. We did what we thought we had to do. Well, we
should do the same when it comes to protecting us at home. How on Earth
can we do less?
So, yes, we have made some progress since we were attacked. How could
we not? How negligent would we have been if we had not done what at
least we have started to try to achieve in providing more support? But
we have not done nearly enough.
History will judge us harshly if we are found wanting when it comes
to defending ourselves on our own soil.
So I hope for the sake of our country, for the sake of our citizens,
we will listen to former Senator Warren Rudman
[[Page S9693]]
and the task force, we will listen to the distinguished Senator from
West Virginia, and we will do our duty, we will vote for the Byrd
amendment, and we will send a clear signal to friend and foe alike that
we intend to prevent, in every way possible, any further terrorism on
our shores. But if anyone dares to take us on, we intend to be ready.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.
Mr. REID. I appreciate very much the statement of the Senator from
New York. Senator Byrd and I were talking earlier. No State has
suffered as did New York as a result of the September 11 incident. We
all know that. But I bring to the Senator's attention that I offered an
amendment earlier today saying that one of the facts that should be
taken into consideration is how many tourists are in the community
within any given time. Of course, New York is a tourist-oriented
community. People are there all the time for various reasons--
conventions, just wanting to see the Big Apple. Even today that is in
fact the case.
One of the facts I brought to the attention of the Senate the other
day is that in Las Vegas, on any given day, there are about 300,000
tourists, and the Senator would agree, I am sure, that the people of
Las Vegas--law enforcement, fire, emergency medical responders, first-
line responders generally--have as much of an obligation to take care
of someone visiting Las Vegas from New York as they do someone who
lives there on a full-time basis. The Senator would agree with that,
would she not?
Mrs. CLINTON. I certainly would agree with the Senator from Nevada. I
believe that is a factor that Secretary Ridge should consider in a
threat-based formula where we have large crowds of people who come for
attractions such as those that the Senator has in Las Vegas or we have
in New York City and certainly other places around our country. That
should be taken into account because our police officers, our
firefighters are constantly on duty because there is a constant stream
of people coming from all over the world to enjoy the attractions.
Mr. REID. I also ask the Senator this: One of the other
considerations I brought to the attention of the Senate is that on any
given day in Las Vegas there are about 75,000 people from foreign
countries. But in looking at some of the statistics I have, even though
we have almost 2\1/2\ million people who visit Las Vegas yearly who
come from other countries, New York City--not the State of New York but
New York City--has 5\1/2\ million people who come from foreign
countries to visit. So on any given day in New York City, instead of
the 75,000 we have in Las Vegas, the Senator has 150,000,
approximately.
Now, would the Senator agree that someone who is visiting New York
City from Turkey, Germany, or Japan, the first-line responders have an
obligation to make sure they are taken care of in the event of an
emergency just as someone who is a New York resident?
Mrs. CLINTON. I certainly do agree with that.
Mr. REID. I hope there is some consideration given to people who are
in New York City, Las Vegas, all of the States--Orlando, FL, where we
have Disney World--that have these large numbers of tourists come from
various parts of our country and around the world, and I hope the
American people understand that. I compliment the Senator from New York
for her outstanding statement in bringing to the attention of the
people of this country and the Senate the information that only can
come from someone who represents the State of New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mrs. CLINTON. Certainly.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to thank the very distinguished
Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, on the ringing defense of the
provisions that are set forth in the amendment that I and several other
Senators are cosponsoring. I do not think any Senator could come to
this floor with better credentials than those of the Senator from New
York, Mrs. Clinton. She represents the State and the city that was the
hardest hit by the terrorist attacks on 9/11. There is only one other
State and one other jurisdiction that suffered, but she has made an
extraordinary plea coming from the experiences that she has suffered as
a result of 9/11.
I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, and she
came to my office not once, not twice, not three times but many times
in support of the appropriations that the Senate was considering and
that the Senate finally enacted. She had a great impact on me as we sat
and talked and as I listened to her recount the problems of her city,
the problems of New York City and of New York State that resulted from
those attacks.
So I thank her for her support of the amendment and say that no one
in the Senate could have made a finer statement in support, and no one
in the Senate would better understand the needs the American people
have as we try to prepare against any future terrorist attacks. I thank
her and her staff for the excellent effort they have put into this
matter.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator from West Virginia and I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Byrd
amendment. The Senator from West Virginia has clearly identified that
there are inadequate resources being devoted to homeland security, and
the paramount concern and responsibility of this body is to protect the
homeland. We have to do that. It cannot simply be protected by
rhetoric. There have to be real resources applied to the task.
In the wake of 9/11, this Congress laid out very clearly and very
deliberately, after much consideration and consultation, major
legislation such as the Transportation Security Act of 2002, the
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, the
Aviation and Transportation Security Act, and the USA PATRIOT Act. All
of these legislative pronouncements laid out a framework to secure our
homeland and, as Senator Byrd points out, we are not living up to the
requirements that were clearly identified by that legislation in terms
of appropriations.
Specifically addressed by Senator Byrd's amendment is a shortfall in
seaports, Coast Guard, and land transit security of $602 million;
police, fire, and emergency medical teams of $729.5 million; security
at United States borders with Canada and Mexico of $238.5 million; air
cargo security, $100 million; and chemical facility security, $80
million.
Now, all of these protections are imperative because what we have
discovered from those who wish us ill--terrorist cells--is first they
are sophisticated; second, they are ruthless; and third, they tend to
strike at areas which are the least protected, not the most protected.
We have made significant improvements in our air transportation
system in terms of passenger travel, screening passengers, and I do not
think most security consultants would say that would be the primary
route of a new attack against us. We still have miles to go with
respect to seaport security, maritime security, security at the
borders, air cargo security. Again, given the nature of our opponents,
our adversaries, it is likely they would look to these places, rather
than areas we have reinforced or fortified, to launch another attack.
The Transportation Security Agency, as we all know, is responsible
for all modes of transportation security. Yet the TSA, as I have
suggested, has focused almost exclusively on our air transportation
system with passenger travel throughout the United States and
throughout the world. With a $4.8 billion budget, TSA has committed
only $86 million for maritime and land security activities in this
budget proposed by the administration. In contrast, $4.3 billion was
requested for aviation security. In fact, the budget requests for
administrative costs at TSA, their headquarters and the mission support
centers, consist of amounts to $218 million, 2.5 times greater than the
total request for maritime and land security activities.
As a result, the budget proposed by the President, the budget Senator
Byrd seeks to amend, does not fully recognize the potential threats to
our
[[Page S9694]]
ports, to our interstate buses, trucks that carry hazardous material,
trains, our transit system, chemical factories--and the list,
unfortunately, is longer.
Let me for a moment concentrate on one area of particular concern;
that is, public transit. In the last Congress, I had the opportunity,
responsibility, and privilege of being the chairman of the subcommittee
in the Banking Committee that dealt with transit issues. We had several
hearings with respect to numerous transit issues but particularly with
respect to transit security. We found, and the GAO verified, there is a
huge demand for resources to protect our transit systems, our subway
systems, our bus systems. This bill hardly measures up to that.
The Byrd amendment--and I commend the Senator--would increase our
efforts in transit security by $57 million. Frankly, based upon the
testimony I heard last year before my committee, this is literally the
proverbial drop in the bucket. There are some estimates--one by the
American Public Transportation Association--that the needs for transit
security through all the transit systems in this country would amount
to $6 billion, primarily in the areas of communication, surveillance,
detection systems, personnel, and training.
For the benefit of my colleagues, I will state that in the wake of
the tragedy of 9/11, there was something remarkable taking place that
minimized our casualities both in New York City and in Washington, DC.
Particularly in Washington, DC, the subway system was the major source
or route of evacuation for literally thousands and thousands of people.
This system in Washington has been the beneficiary of a great deal of
attention. It might be because of the proximity to the appropriators
but, indeed, it had effective communications, it had a well-managed and
well-trained group of operators, and they were able to move people
literally underneath the Pentagon even though that building had been
attacked. In New York City, the transit operators, these individual
transit police officers and station masters, were able successfully to
evacuate the subways and move people out because of communication
systems, because of training, because of the infrastructure already
there.
Those two systems--New York City and Washington, DC--are some of the
most sophisticated in the country. Other parts of the country, other
areas do not have the communication systems; they do not have the
training; they do not have the expertise. That would go for probably
every system, to varying degrees, throughout my country.
In my home State of Rhode Island, we have a statewide bus system,
which is a good system, but they would be the first to say they need
more training; they need more communications equipment; they need
redundant communication systems in the event of an emergency so they
can get through to the operators and the operators can get through to
their dispatchers and controllers. That is just one example of the
tremendous need for help for transit security.
There are approximately 6,000 transit agencies in the United States.
These transit agencies provide over 9 billion trips per year,
representing 43 billion passenger miles.
Yet there is very minimal funding in this bill for transit security.
Once again, if you believe, as I, that our adversaries are cunning,
ruthless, and will strike at the most vulnerable portions of our
country, transit is a target that I am sure is being considered. We
have to do something to protect our riders, the literally millions of
riders a year.
I hope we can support enthusiastically the Byrd amendment. It would
represent a significant increase in our homeland security. It would
address the areas that have been neglected in this bill sent to us by
the administration.
Once again I emphasize, particularly in the area of transit security,
even if we were to pass the Byrd amendment, if we wanted to ensure that
all of our transit systems have the most up-to-date equipment and
communications, that all of their personnel were well trained, we would
be talking not about an additional several million dollars but we would
be talking about literally billions of dollars.
I commend the Senator from West Virginia for his leadership. This is
not the first time he has come to this floor to argue eloquently and
passionately that we should defend our homeland. I am sure it will not
be the last. I hope we can support this amendment.
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REED. I yield.
Mr. BYRD. Let me express my appreciation to the Senator for his
support of the amendment; more than that, for his steadfast support of
the appropriations as we have dealt with this problem time and again on
the floor.
The Senator, as is Senator Clinton, is a member of the Armed Services
Committee, and his support for this amendment tells a lot. Here is the
support of two Senators on the Armed Services Committee. They have been
on there quite a while. They have seniority.
The Senator from Rhode Island is an outstanding member of the
committee. I deeply appreciate his support of this amendment. I
appreciate his patriotism and his eloquence and support of preparing
this country against such attacks as it was subjected to on September
11, 2001.
Mr. REED. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of the Members.
I thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi for giving me an
opportunity to spend a few minutes before making a motion on the
amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr.
Byrd, to give me a chance to express my views on this amendment and to
begin by thanking my seatmate and colleague of these many years for
offering this amendment. Once again, his eloquence and his leadership
and his vision are giving this body an opportunity to do something
right for the American people.
We have all felt the sense of anxiety in this country since the
startling events of September 11, 2001. There have certainly been no
limits to the number of speeches given to the importance of making our
Nation more secure, taking steps to see to it that our airports, our
harbors, our borders, receive the kind of support and backing needed to
keep this Nation as secure as we possibly can be, with the full
understanding that as a nation, an open society, a nation where freedom
and liberties are extended to all, this is not an easy path to walk--to
be an open, free nation and simultaneously to be more secure. How we
balance those interests requires a great deal of thought, a great deal
of work.
The Senator is offering a reflection of what has been suggested by
the Council on Foreign Relations in the report analyzing where we are
today, 2 years after the events of September 11.
To quote the authors of that report, we are ``still dangerously
unprepared, underfunded for a catastrophic terrorist attack.''
I think we ought to take their words to heart and we ought to do what
we can to see to it that first responders--our fire departments, our
police departments--are going to receive the kind of backing and
support they ought to be getting from the Federal Government.
What the distinguished Senator from West Virginia is offering is a
modest proposal. The money is not significant, I know that. But when
you consider the gap that exists--the Council on Foreign Relations
suggests that we are underfunding first responders by more than $98
billion. That is a huge amount of money. But if you go even further,
reading the report, the number actually is twice that amount when you
consider what needs to be done at other levels of government as well,
to maximize our protection.
Unfortunately, we are coming way short of that number. So while we
talk about this issue and identify the various problems that exist,
this 62-page report, released on Monday, points out that we have a lot
more work to do.
Senator Byrd has offered us an opportunity to close some of that gap.
That is all, it is just some of this gap that will be closed by his
amendment. I am disturbed that we are not going to be doing more. I
fully support what the Senator from West Virginia is offering, but I
think the American public would expect more. I suspect most did not
have an opportunity to read this report or even hear news reports about
it. But
[[Page S9695]]
as certainly as I am standing here today, there are going to be events
that will come. I wish I didn't have to say that, but I think all of us
know that to be the case. From what we are witnessing in Iraq today,
what we have seen in Liberia, what we have seen in various targets
around the globe, none of us should operate under the illusion that we
are going to be immune from any future attacks because of what we have
done since 9/11.
There are those gathered in places around the globe, as I share these
words this afternoon, who are planning to attack this country, whether
abroad or at home. They are planning it. Be certain of it. They are
going to look for the opportunities to do us great harm and great
damage. Any conclusion other than that would be foolhardy. They are
doing it, and the question is, What are we doing to see to it that we
are maximizing the protection of the people we have been charged to
represent?
The painful conclusion is that we are not doing enough yet.
Obviously, we cannot do this all at once, but we have a report telling
us that after 2 years we are still woefully short of meeting those
obligations. We have an opportunity. We have to make choices here. They
are not comfortable choices, but we need to make these choices.
The time will come when a judgment will be made, and the question
will be asked of us: What did you do, when you knew better? You were
being told over and over again that you hadn't done enough yet. What
did you do on that day in July, prior to your August break, when you
were given an opportunity by the Byrd amendment to invest more
resources to make these first responders better prepared? Where were
you? How did you cast your vote?
Because the memories of 9/11, even after just 2 years, seem to be
fading, it would be a catastrophic and tragic mistake, in my view, not
to heed the counsel and advice of my colleague from West Virginia and
step up and do what is right here and provide backing. I hope for
unanimous support for this amendment. I cannot think of a more
important or meaningful message we can send that we are prepared to
take whatever steps are necessary to maximize the protections of our
people within constitutional limitations.
My fear is the less we do along the lines suggested by the Senator
from West Virginia, the more likely we are to take steps to limit the
freedoms of average Americans. That seems to be the direction we are
heading, to restrain or prevent individuals from doing certain things
or examining or investigating individual people, rather than to
strengthen the first responders and provide more harbor protection, to
see to it our harbors and ports are going to be better protected.
Senator Byrd is offering us an opportunity, in a modest way, to
answer that question that history will ask of us at some point. When
you knew you were likely to be attacked again, when you knew you were
likely to be victimized by terrorists, on that day in July when you
were asked to make a choice to do more, to step to the plate, how did
you cast your ballot? How did you represent your constituents when
confronted with that choice? Senator Byrd is providing that opportunity
to us this afternoon, and I hope our colleagues will join me in
supporting this amendment to take a modest step, and that is all this
is, to answer the deep concerns that have been expressed by our former
colleague, Warren Rudman, and other individuals who prepared this
report for the Council on Foreign Relations.
This report is a serious document. These are serious conclusions
reached by serious individuals who have done their homework. This is
not a political document. It is a document that lays out, chapter and
verse, where the shortcomings are and what needs to be done by this
National Government to try to close these gaps. Senator Byrd is
offering us that chance to do it.
I thank him profoundly for this suggestion that he has made to us. I
am going to have several amendments myself later on in this debate to
deal with fire departments across the country to increase, if we can,
the resources to see to it they can have the tools necessary to respond
to the challenges they will see. This amendment is more comprehensive,
the amendment being offered by Senator Byrd. We will have other
suggestions to make as well. But this is the first opportunity for us
to say that our memories have not faded.
While others may focus on other events as they captivate the
attention of the media, we remember what happened on 9/11. While there
is no certainty we can stop it from happening again, we want to take
the steps necessary to see to it that we make it that much harder for
those who would do us harm to achieve their goals.
For those reasons, I strongly endorse this amendment and urge my
colleagues to do likewise by casting a vote in favor of the Byrd
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order under section
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the Byrd amendment provides
spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I realize this is not debatable. I shall
shortly move to waive the point of order, which will be debatable, not
that I intend to take long in debating it. But if the Chair will
indulge me momentarily, I want to thank Senator Dodd for his very
forceful and cogent and persuasive statement in support of the
amendment. He is extremely eloquent. He intends to follow up this
statement after a little while with an amendment of his own. But I
thank him profusely, without being profuse, for an excellent, excellent
statement. I believe his perspicacity will be rewarded in time. I
believe it will be. I know the American people are better off for
having him in the Senate and for the support he has given to this
amendment. I hope the Senate will prevail in support of the statement
of the Senator from Connecticut.
Now, Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act
for purposes of the pending amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the motion to waive?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Mississippi has been
very patient today. We have one additional Senator who says he is on
his way. I am confident he is. So if the Senator from Mississippi would
be patient, he should be here shortly.
I note the absence of a quorum.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold?
Mr. REID. I am happy to withhold. Of course I will.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, while Senator Nelson is coming to the floor,
let me just remind my colleagues that I offered an amendment last
January to add $5 billion to the omnibus appropriations bill for 2003
for homeland security programs such as port security, nuclear security,
airport security, and first responders. The White House labeled the
amendment as extraneous spending and the amendment was defeated.
So what happened? Ten weeks later, the White House requested a $4.4
billion supplemental. And a month later, Congress approved $5.1 billion
of supplemental homeland security funding. So the White House was a day
late and several hundred million dollars short. All the White House
accomplished was the delay of critical homeland security investments
for 3 months.
That was a repeat of the same old tune we heard from the White House
at the time Senator Stevens and I wrote a letter to the White House and
to Secretary Ridge urging that there be more money for homeland
security. Secretary Ridge responded with a letter to Senator Stevens
and to me saying that the White House believed that our amendment was
extraneous for the moment and that the White House would be submitting
its own request in due time.
So it seems that whenever we have attempted to offer legislation to
protect our own country, to protect the people of the country, to
protect the infrastructure of the country, to protect the industries of
the country from attack, the administration always says it does not
need these moneys and that in due time it will submit its own request.
And so that seems to be the record today.
[[Page S9696]]
Today we are debating an amendment to add just $1.75 billion for
homeland security. And the majority, speaking for the administration,
says the amendment is too large. Mr. President, history has a way of
repeating itself. The Senate should approve this amendment today. The
Senate should not wait for the White House to recognize real homeland
security vulnerabilities. Delay does not make the Nation more secure.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of
the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia.
There are a lot of important reasons to enact this amendment. There
is no greater calling for the National Government now than to protect
the homeland. We see all the instability in the world and the fact that
Iraq has now become a magnet for a lot of bad guys in all the world who
want to do damage to the United States. In Iraq, almost one American
soldier a day is being assassinated.
By the way, the assassinations are taking place in three different
ways. On the eve of my arrival, 2 weeks ago, in Baghdad, very sadly and
unfortunately, one of our Florida National Guard soldiers from
Gainesville was assassinated. In this particular case, the soldier was
on guard duty for a delegation that had gone to a meeting at the
university. And in the hubbub of all the crowds at the university, this
soldier was standing guard for the party that was meeting. The soldier
was vulnerable because of the crowds. And our soldiers are vulnerable
between that position and that position--being the upper part of the
body armor, the Kevlar, and the helmet. And, in this particular case,
in the hubbub of that crowd, someone tapped that soldier on the
shoulder. He turned around, and he was shot in the face. That is one
method of assassination.
Another method is to use a landmine with a remote control device, and
usually a landmine placed on a part of a road where the road narrows,
so when the convoy comes along that area, the landmine can be
detonated. And it is usually targeted at a lightly armored vehicle such
as a humvee. We have had that happen a number of times.
And then a third method, which has been used more frequently
recently, is the use of the rocket-propelled grenades. In the case of
the soldiers last night who were assassinated, it was being fired from
a position behind bushes, near a roadside.
But another method is where a convoy is moving out, and they are
moving rapidly, and someone on a downtown street tries to insert into
that convoy and then shoots an RPG either at the vehicle in front of
them or to the rear of them.
So, clearly, there is a lot of trauma and mischief that is going on
in that part of the world. But it is a foretelling of what people want
to do to the United States. It is not just the Fedayeen and it is not
just the Baathists and it is not just the Saddam loyalists. Iraq is now
attracting outsiders who want to do damage to the United States.
So if they target there, clearly they are going to be targeting here
as well. This, by the way, is another reason, when we try to protect
ourselves against terrorists, our protection is only so good as the
timeliness of our intelligence and the accuracy of our intelligence.
Does that ring a bell? And I hope we get through all of that and get it
straightened out as well.
But the issue before us is the protection of the homeland. You cannot
protect the homeland on the cheap. If the question is how we allocate
the moneys--if it should go to tax cuts or protecting the homeland--
then that gets to be a pretty simple answer. The people want the
homeland protected.
Although there is some measure of protection that is offered, now
Senator Byrd has offered additional protection. The debate has already
been held, and I will not repeat, except to emphasize one thought:
Florida, my State, has 15 deepwater ports. It is a place of great
vulnerability because of all the containers that come into this
country, only 2 to 3 percent of them are checked.
If we are looking for weapons as easily concealed, for example, as a
shoulder-mounted heat-seeking missile that can bring down a commercial
airliner, how easy that is to slip into the country in a container in
port. Senator Byrd is offering a total of $610 million, $460 million
over the existing $150 million in the bill, for expenses for port
security. I can tell you every one of those port managers in my State--
and I think I can speak also for the other ports of the other States--
are strapped with so many expenses. They desperately need additional
help for security at their ports.
I rest my case. It is a matter of common sense in the protection of
the homeland. I have only spoken about one part of the appropriations
in this amendment. I encourage our colleagues to support Senator Byrd's
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the hour has gotten late and the vote is
nearly upon us, but I did not want this opportunity to pass by without
commending my colleague from West Virginia on his amendment. When we
talk about the need for homeland security and the efforts to safeguard
the American people, Senator Byrd has been leading the charge here in
the Senate, and here in Washington, every step of the way for the past
22 months. Tonight he again reminds us about putting the Nation's
priorities in order. As he rightly argues, an additional $1.8 billion
for increased port security, enhanced chemical and electrical security,
and additional aid to our first responders struggling out there to
protect Americans is no burden, it is an imperative.
In the past several days, as I have prepared for this debate, I have
had the opportunity to follow up with mayors across Massachusetts to
see how they are coming along in their efforts to protect their
citizens. They are working hard, and they are doing their best, but
they are not getting the help they need. Mayor Ed Lambert in Fall
River, MA, has, to date, only gotten $150,000 to protect his city of
95,000. One-hundred and fifty thousand dollars for a city that has had
to reduce its police force by more than 30 police officers. He has the
responsibility to protect an extremely important reservoir that serves
200,000 citizens of Southeastern Massachusetts and $150,000 doesn't get
him very far.
The Mayor of Holyoke, MA, Mike Sullivan, didn't even fare that well.
His city is home to one of the nerve centers of the Northeast's
electricity grid. And yet he has gotten no homeland security assistance
to date to help defray the costs of protecting this piece of critical
infrastructure which his police force constantly monitors. He has also
gotten no instruction from the federal government regarding what he
should be doing to keep it safe and secure.
So if any of our colleagues wonder what is happening in the homeland
or questioning whether first responders in their cities and towns need
help, I recommend that they simply pick up the phone and call their
mayors. The mayors and local officials will tell them what an
extraordinary need there is. They will also tell them of the great
pressure and anxiety they feel to try to do more to protect the
public's safety at a time when most of them are wrestling with crushing
and unprecedented budget shortfalls.
This amendment makes an important downpayment, and sends a strong
signal to mayors and first responders across the country. It says that
the U.S. Senate knows that more needs to be done, that not enough is
being done, and that we are prepared to begin helping you meet the
awesome challenges you face. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for
standing firm on this amendment, and for all he has done to force our
government to recognize and address the extraordinary homeland security
needs confronting this nation. I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Florida, Mr. Nelson, and I thank the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, for their excellent statements. I thank
them for supporting the amendment. I hope the
[[Page S9697]]
Senate will vote to waive the point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the motion to
waive?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the motion. The yeas and nays
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), and
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy)
would each vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 291 Leg.]
YEAS--43
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden
NAYS--50
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
DeWine
Dole
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--7
Crapo
Domenici
Edwards
Graham (FL)
Kerry
Leahy
Lieberman
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 43 and the nays
are 50. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained. The amendment falls.
national hazardous materials transportation monitoring and response
center
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia, Mr.
Byrd, for his work on this important Homeland Security appropriations
bill. As the Senator knows, I am pleased that the bill we are
discussing today includes within the Transportation Security
Administration ``$13 million for the hazardous materials permit program
and truck tracking system to provide for nationwide coverage.'' As you
are aware, the Federal Government has issued warnings that terrorists
may exploit the 800,000 daily hazardous waste and dangerous goods
shipments in new attacks on the U.S.--either as weapons of mass
destruction or in the manufacture of such weapons. So the funding you
and Chairman Cochran have included in this bill is very timely and
important.
Mr. BYRD. I agree this is important and timely funding for one of the
many needs facing our Nation as we deal with terrorist threats.
Mr. REID. I want to ask the Senator if he is aware that the
University of Nevada Las Vegas is working to initiate development of a
National Hazardous Materials Transportation Monitoring and Response
Center that would build upon existing commercially available satellite
based nationwide truck monitoring and communications technology. The
center would ensure a secure location for nationwide hazardous material
truck monitoring. It would also link, for the first time, the ability
to remotely identify an incident anywhere in the country with the
ability to immediately alert the appropriate emergency responders and
law enforcement officials.
Mr. BYRD. Yes, I understand this project is in development in Nevada.
I encourage the Department to consider using a portion of the $13
million appropriated for hazardous materials tracking to help initiate
the development of this project.
Mr. REID. I thank my colleague from West Virginia and the Chairman
Cochran for their support of those efforts and look forward to working
with the committee on this important issue.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 2555, the
Homeland Security Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004, as reported
by the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
I want to commend the distinguished chairman and the ranking member
for bringing the Senate a spending bill within the Subcommittees'
302(b) allocation. Moreover, they and their staffs need to be
congratulated on reporting the very first Homeland Security
Appropriations bill.
The pending bill provides $29.4 billion in total budget authority and
$30.6 billion in total outlays for fiscal year 2004. For discretionary
spending the Senate bill is at the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for
budget authority and outlays. The Senate bill is $1.4 billion in BA and
outlays above the President's budget request.
The pending bill funds the programs of the Department of Homeland
Security, including the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the U.S. Coast Guard,
the Transportation Security Administration, the U.S. Secret Service,
the Office for Domestic Preparedness, and several other offices and
activities.
I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee
scoring of the bill be in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
H.R. 2555, DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS, 2004; SPENDING
COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
(Fiscal year 2004, in millions of dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
purpose Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-Reported Bill:
Budget authority.................. 28,521 831 29,352
Outlays........................... 29,737 847 30,584
Senate Committee allocation:
Budget authority.................. 28,521 831 29,352
Outlays........................... 29,737 847 30,584
2003 level:
Budget authority.................. 28,269 889 29,158
Outlays........................... 27,558 818 28,376
President's request:
Budget authority.................. 27,114 831 27,945
Outlays........................... 28,323 847 29,170
House-passed bill:
Budget authority.................. 29,411 831 30,242
Outlays........................... 30,500 847 31,347
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority.................. .......... .......... ..........
Outlays........................... .......... .......... ..........
2003 level:
Budget authority.................. 252 (58) 194
Outlays........................... 2,179 29 2,208
President's request:
Budget authority.................. 1,407 .......... 1,407
Outlays........................... 1,414 .......... 1,414
House-passed bill:
Budget authority.................. (890) .......... (890)
Outlays........................... (763) .......... (763)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.
____________________