[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the quorum call be rescinded.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.

  

                          ____________________