[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16237-16238]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the fiscal year 2006 
Homeland Security appropriations bill. The Senate passed this measure 
nearly unanimously and I voted in support of it.
  I would like to begin by thanking the principal authors and managers 
of this legislation: Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd. It is no easy task 
to write a bill that provides for our domestic security needs. I 
commend both of our colleagues and their staffs for the hard work they 
put into crafting this legislation.
  The bill that passed the Senate funds our country's homeland security 
activities at $31.9 billion for the upcoming fiscal year. These 
activities include port security, rail security, truck security, 
aviation security, emergency first responders, customs and border 
patrol, immigration, the Coast Guard, and counter-terrorism research. 
Taken together, these initiatives form the foundation upon which our 
country depends for its internal security.
  In an age when terrorism continues to be a growing threat to our 
Nation, one would think that the Congress of the United States would be 
doing everything it could to shore up that foundation--to make it as 
impregnable as possible against those who wish us harm. Yet, when we 
look at the legislation passed by the Senate, I do not believe it does 
enough to protect our people from terrorism. We are simply not 
investing the resources that are required to make this Nation as safe 
as possible. Instead of filling in the gaps that continue to exist 
within our homeland security foundation, we are letting those gaps and 
cracks grow in several critical respects.
  One does not have to look further than protecting our critical 
infrastructure and funding our emergency first responders. These 2 
areas arguably form the backbone of our efforts to prevent and 
effectively respond to terrorist attacks at home. They encompass 
protecting our ports, our railroads, our transit systems and our 
commercial vehicles. They encompass quickly and effectively responding 
to real or perceived threats in all parts of our country.
  The bill that passed the Senate provides $3.9 billion to protect our 
critical infrastructure, equip our first responders, and assist local 
governments in planning and coordinating their homeland security 
activities. While this may seem like a large number to many Americans, 
it has been cited by numerous national security and public health 
experts, along with first responders themselves, as being wholly 
inadequate to meet the homeland security demands of the twenty-first 
century. Furthermore, the number is actually less than what has been 
provided in the past. It is approximately $500 million less than what 
was provided last year and approximately $700 million less than 2 years 
ago. Clearly, we are heading in the wrong direction--doing less to 
protect our country adequately when we ought to be doing more.
  As we have seen in Madrid last year, in London 2 weeks ago and in 
Iraq almost every week, terrorists have become adept at exploiting weak 
points in critical infrastructure, particularly transportation systems. 
I question what it will take for us to realize that we need to be 
investing more in our domestic critical infrastructure and in our first 
responders.
  Although we have taken steps to boost our homeland security since the 
attacks on September 11th, our critical infrastructure remains largely 
exposed and our emergency first responders spread too thin. Today, less 
than 5 percent of commercial cargo arriving at our seaports is screened 
for threats; our rail systems and bus systems remain largely open and 
unsupervised. Meanwhile, our first responders lack both the staff and 
resources they need to protect lives and property. Hundreds of police 
departments--both large and small--have experienced alarming personnel 
shortages. A super majority of fire departments in this Nation does not 
have the manpower required to meet the 21st century needs of their 
districts or municipalities.
  As the Senate considered this legislation, I was pleased to lend my 
support to several amendments that sought to raise resources for 
critical infrastructure protection and first responders. Among these 
measures were those to simplify homeland security grants, increase 
resources to local homeland security programs, enhance air cargo 
security, increase truck security, ensure greater protection of our 
rail and transit systems and provide first responders with advanced 
communication systems. I also offered an amendment that would have 
increased critical infrastructure security and first responder funding 
by $16 billion to a total of $20 billion. My amendment would have 
codified a recommendation made 2 years ago by a task force chaired by 
our former colleague, Warren Rudman, along with a distinguished panel 
of national security, intelligence, military and public health 
officials.
  Regrettably, none of these measures was adopted. They were largely 
rejected because they exceeded the budget caps placed on the bill. 
Members who spoke in opposition to these amendments argued that we 
could not afford the extra cost. Instead of finding new resources, they 
suggested using existing resources already in the bill to boost 
infrastructure protection and first responders.
  For this reason, I had to cast my vote against two amendments that 
would have increased funding for first responder and border patrol 
security by decreasing State homeland security grant and Coast Guard 
funding. This kind of bureaucratic shell game is a wholly inadequate 
means to protect our critical infrastructure, our first responders and 
our borders. It entails investing in new resources to do what it is 
right to put our country on a more secure and sound footing.
  Ironically, many of the Members who opposed these amendments have 
supported permanent tax cuts for the most affluent of Americans--tax 
cuts that have been projected to cost $1 trillion over the next 15 
years. If we can afford to give such a generous tax break to the few 
thousand wealthiest Americans, then why can we not afford adequately to 
safeguard 281 million Americans from terrorist attacks at a mere 
fraction of that cost?
  We are living in extraordinary times. Never before in our history has 
there been a period of time when the threat of harm to Americans on 
their own soil has been so high. While it has been almost 4 years since 
terrorists attacked

[[Page 16238]]

the World Trade Center, the more recent attacks in Madrid and London 
tell us that we must remain vigilant about our domestic security. They 
tell us that we must renew and redouble our efforts to prevent and 
respond to terrorism here at home.
  I applaud Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff's decision earlier 
this week to streamline his department's administrative bureaucracy. I 
believe that this will enable the Department to respond more 
effectively to the needs of our States and localities. At the same 
time, I am deeply disturbed by the Secretary's comments yesterday which 
suggested that transit security should be paid for entirely by States. 
I find this view to be dangerously outdated and incongruous with the 
one needed to combat terrorism effectively. If the events of last week 
did not remind us already, we no longer live in the 19th century but in 
the 21st. Our very survival depends on planning and coordination that 
involves all levels of government. No one entity should bear the 
enormous financial burden of protecting Americans from terrorist 
attacks.
  On balance, I voted for this legislation because the funding it 
appropriates is much better than nothing. However, I look forward to 
working with my colleagues in the coming years to find and provide the 
necessary resources that can make our Nation as safe and strong as it 
can possibly be.

                          ____________________