[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22104-22105]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           HOMELAND SECURITY

  Mr. DURBIN. I have a limited amount of time and will now reflect on 
the issue of homeland security. There are two ways to move the economy 
forward: Tax cuts and spending. The faster way, the more effective and 
immediate way, is through spending because as we spend on important 
projects and the money is spent, people are employed to do things 
important for America.

  Senator Byrd of West Virginia and others have offered as part of the 
stimulus package a $20 billion package dealing with homeland security. 
Where would that money go? For example, it

[[Page 22105]]

would go to law enforcement. In my State of Illinois, my Republican 
Governor has asked me to help come up with $20 million so we can have a 
statewide communications network to deal with any emergencies, any 
crisis, any act of terrorism. This is money well spent. I want to give 
the Governor that money, but unless Senator Byrd's package moves 
forward, it is not likely that will happen.
  The same thing on bioterrorism: We want to see money going into 
public health departments, State and local, to help them fight the war 
against bioterrorism. We need them. We have realized that with the 
anthrax crisis.
  Look at the contrast: What the administration has called for to help 
public health departments on bioterrorism is $300 million a year to go 
to State and local public health agencies. That amount is nothing. 
Remember, as well, the Republicans, in their stimulus plan coming from 
the House, want to give $1.4 billion to one corporation--IBM. To give 
four or five times as much as might be spent to fight the war against 
bioterrorism is clearly a loss of our priority.
  We also need to put money into security for Amtrak, for our airports, 
for our highways, for critical infrastructure across America. The money 
called for by Senator Byrd would go for that purpose. I think that is 
money well spent and invested in the infrastructure of this country.
  People expect us to respond to this crisis with not only tax cuts 
that will truly move the economy forward but also with a spending 
package that makes America safer. It doesn't make America safer to give 
a $16,000 check to a millionaire out of the Social Security trust fund. 
It might make America safer if we take that money and invest it in law 
enforcement, in protecting critical infrastructure such as water 
supplies, nuclear power plants, and the highways, and infrastructure 
across America.
  Those are the differences, and they are critical differences.
  I also make note of the fact that the editorial response to the 
Republican stimulus package so far has been uniformly negative. As a 
matter of fact, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill referred to the House-
Republican-backed stimulus package as just so much show business. We 
don't need show business on Capitol Hill; we need to get down to 
serious business. That serious business involves responding to our 
economic crisis and doing it in a timely fashion and a fair manner.
  I salute the Senate Finance Committee for moving forward a package 
yesterday, on a partisan rollcall, I am sorry to report, but one that 
we will consider next week. I hope the Republicans will work with us 
quickly pass a bipartisan package. The sooner we can respond to this 
economy and its needs, the better it will be.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.

                          ____________________