Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I rise to engage the mangers of the FY 2003 Defense Appropriations bill, Senators Inouye and Stevens, in a colloquy on Navy Basic Research funding.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank both managers.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Assistance to victims of the Sierra Grande fires, $61 million; veterans medical care--Hi there, veterans, get in touch with the White House. Tell the President to sign his name on that emergency designation package because it includes $275 million for veterans medical. Madam President, I thank all Senators for listening. I will have more to say, the Lord willing, in due time. (Applause in the Visitors' Galleries.)

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, later this week, the Senate is expected to begin debate on the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security. The debate, however, will not be about whether to create a new Department, but rather how to create a new Department. Since the President unveiled his legislative proposal 6 weeks ago, the Congress seems unwilling--or unable, perhaps--to resist the stampede moving it towards the creation of this new Department. Indeed, the momentum behind the idea seems almost unstoppable. With the level of endorsement the Congress has given to this idea, one would think that the proposal for a new Homeland Security Department had been engraved in the stone tablets that were handed down to Moses at Mount Sinai. But in reality, the idea was developed by four Presidential staffers--four--in the basement of the White House. For all we know, it could have been drafted on the back of a cocktail napkin. The administration did not consult with Members of Congress about the President's proposal. We were not asked for our input. The week the President unveiled his proposal to the American people, only a select circle of Washington insiders were even aware of its existence. I remember the events of that week. The administration was under fire about whether U.S. intelligence agencies had adequate information to prevent the September 11 attacks. FBI whistlerblower Coleen Rowley was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee--the same day, in fact, that the President addressed the Nation to announce this new Department. The President's poll numbers were dropping as the American public began to question the effectiveness of the administration's plan to protect our homeland. The Congress was taking the initiative on the homeland security front. Senator Lieberman's proposal to create a new Department of Homeland Security was slowly gaining momentum in the media. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer just a few weeks earlier criticized the Lieberman plan by saying that ``a [new] cabinet post doesn't solve anything.'' That was Mr. Fleischer talking: ``a new Cabinet post doesn't solve anyting.'' This was the political environment in which the President unveiled his hasty proposal, and that proposal was widely reported in the media as helping the administration to retake the initiative in protecting the homeland. The President's address to the Nation helped to restore the confidence of the American public in the administration's efforts to protect the homeland, and even provided the President with a boost in his approval ratings. So the President's proposal was crafted in the bowels of the White House, cloaked in secrecy, and presented by an administration trying to regain political ground. Those are hardly the conditions that should inspire the Congress to rally around a Presidential proposal, but that is exactly what is happening. The Congress is coming around, rallying around a massive, massive governmental reorganization with little discussion about whether such a reorganization is desirable or even necessary. What is worse, the Congress is so eager to show itself united beside the administration in our Government's efforts to protect the homeland, that it has committed itself to a timetable that would allow for only minimum debate about the President's proposal--a plan of dubious origins--so that we can expedite its passage before the 1-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Think of that! Have we all completely taken leave of our senses? The President is shouting ``Pass the bill! Pass the bill! Pass the bill.'' The administration's Cabinet Secretaries are urging the adoption of the President's proposal without any changes. And the House of Representatives eagerly complied last week by passing legislation that essentially mirrors--mirrors--the President's plan. If ever there was a need for the Senate to throw a bucket of cold water on an overheated legislative process that is spinning out of control, it is now--now. But what are we doing instead? In the Senate, the Governmental Affairs Committee marked up its legislation just 5 weeks after receiving the President's legislative proposal. Until last week, Senators were being urged to finish consideration of the bill before the August recess begins this Friday. Think of that. The Senate would have had just 1 week to consider this bill, before it passed and was sent to conference before the August break. Considering that the committee-reported bill was only made available yesterday afternoon, this schedule would have given Senators only 4 days to read and understand what was crafted by the Governmental Affairs Committee. And to finish the bill within a week, Senators would certainly have been discouraged from offering amendments and debate would have been stifled. That was the process being urged by some for the Congress' ``deliberative body''--the greatest deliberative body in the world. I certainly understand that no Senator wants to be seen as delaying our Government's efforts to protect our homeland. But in trying to avoid being labeled as obstructionists, we must not be willing to ignore even the most pertinent questions about the proposal--such as will a new Homeland Security Department actually make the public safer from terrorists? Prior to the President's address, there were at least eight different proposals pending before the Congress to reorganize the Government to better protect the homeland. Those proposals ranged from creating a homeland security czar to establishing an independent Homeland Security Office to authorizing in statute certain powers for the White House Office of Homeland Security. All of them have been trumped by visions of political advertisements attacking Members of Congress for not moving fast enough to create a new Homeland Security Department. If we are going to be totally honest here, we need to put aside visions of campaign ads and do some good old-fashioned thinking. This proposed merger constitutes the largest--the largest--Government restructuring in our Nation's history--bringing together pieces of 22 agencies, involving as many as 170,000 or more Federal employees from perhaps over 100 bureaus and branches. A governmental reorganization of this size involves more than just reorganizing the Federal Government on a flow chart. It means physically moving the bureaus and agencies to a new Department, transplanting tens of thousands of people, desks, computers and phones, hooking them together and making them work again. It also means changing the culture, power structures, and internal dynamics of the relevant agencies and bureaus. It means dealing with confusion, bureaucratic conflict, and unclear lines of authority. As Norman Ornstein recently wrote in The Washington Post: ``This would be a Herculean task for even one agency. It is beyond Herculean for twenty-two agencies.'' If we take this giant step, our homeland defense system will likely be in a state of chaos for the next few years, and amid this upheaval, we run the risk of creating gaps in our homeland defenses. If our enemies are planning to attack the seams in our defenses, this massive reorganization will likely provide them with some excellent opportunities. That helps to explain, in part, why the much touted reorganization that consolidated the armed forces within the Defense Department took place after World War II, and not immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Even then, it took a number of years and a number of legislative efforts to get that reorganization into decent, effective working order. How long will it be before this new Homeland Security Department is in decent, effective working order? What if Osama bin Laden does not wait until we have finished restructuring? What if bin Laden is tempted to strike at the exact moment that these agency officials are dragging their desks up Pennsylvania Avenue to their new office assignments? I would like to see a risk analysis regarding the creation of the DHS. Will Americans be exposed to more risk for an unknown time period as a result of establishing an additional mammoth bureaucracy? The Brookings Institution emphasized this point in a report issued this month urging the Congress to move cautiously as it considers the creation of a new department. ``The danger,'' the report states, ``is that top managers will be preoccupied for months, if not years, with getting the reorganization right--thus giving insufficient attention to their real job: taking concrete action to counter the terrorist threat at home.'' The Wall Street Journal agreed in an editorial this month saying that ``The middle of a crisis, and only weeks before an election, isn't the optimal time to debate and pass the biggest transformation of Government in fifty years. The Administration has plenty else to focus on before rearranging the bureaucracy.'' If the purpose of this reorganization is to increase accountability for our homeland defense agencies, then it doesn't make any sense to provide those agency chiefs with opportunities for new excuses. How easy would it be for the INS Commissioner to blame that agency's next high profile blunder on problems associated with the transition to the new department? The Congress hasn't even developed a standard to determine which agencies should be moved to the new department--contributing to a growing concern that too many agencies are being shifted around, with too little focus on preventing future attacks. A strong case can be made for consolidating the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Customs Service, and other border security agencies, but the arguments for moving the Secret Service, for example, are hardly compelling. The litmus test for moving these agencies does not appear to be why, but rather why not. Another point the Congress needs to remember is that this new department will assume the non-homeland security related functions of the agencies that are transferred to it. But if we are unhappy with the Treasury Department's oversight of the Customs Service's efforts to inspect the cargo entering U.S. ports, we will probably be just as unhappy with the Homeland Security Department's oversight of the Customs Service's efforts to enforce our trade laws. Creating a new Department is unlikely to solve the problem of departments neglecting key functions of their agencies; it only alters which functions are likely to be neglected. These are basic problems which the Congress appears ready to push aside in order to meet the administration's call for quick action on this legislation. And this is not exactly an administration that has been open with the Congress about its plans for reorganizing the Federal Government. The administration has not issued a cost estimate of the President's proposed merger and insists that the transition costs will be kept to a minimum. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the President's proposed merger will cost $3 billion, with a capital ``B,'' over 5 years. The White House says not to worry, however, because the transition costs will be repaid through long-term savings. That sounds like a neat trick. The administration wants to create a new bureaucracy with a secretary, a deputy secretary, five undersecretaries, 16 assistant secretaries, and as many as 500 senior appointees, without appropriating any additional money to finance the transition. The new managerial level alone will cost scores of millions of dollars. And there is the rub. Protecting our homeland requires resources and personnel, and they cost money. We have to pay our border patrol agents, our sky marshals, and our national guardsmen. But this administration, in trying to appease its own party base, is refusing to spend the money necessary to make America safer, and instead is pushing for this reorganization of Government. But this massive governmental reorganization is going to be costly. It is going to require the investment of real money, your money. It cannot be done with the kind of creative accounting gimmicks you might expect to find at Halliburton Company and Harken Energy Corporation. When the White House makes these kinds of ridiculous comments about long-term savings, the Congress and the American people better get ready because the White House has got something up its sleeve. The Bush administration has already sought a blanket waiver of civil service law to set up a new personnel system for the new Department. The President's proposal would give the new Secretary broad power to overhaul the pay, benefits, and workplace rules for over 200,000 Federal workers. The proposal would also exempt the new Department from procurement laws, such as the Competition in Contracting Act and the Contract Disputes Act. This sounds to me like an attempt to contract out homeland security-related services so that the administration can make the artificial claim that they are shrinking Government and reducing Federal costs. My larger concerns, however, reside deeper in the administration's recent comments on managing the new Department. These comments, I fear, indicate that the administration has something far more unpalatable up its sleeve. The President said in a pep rally for Federal workers this month that the administration needs the ``freedom to manage'' the new Department. To clarify those comments, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said that ``we need all of the flexibility we can get,'' and suggested that close congressional oversight could cripple the new Department's ability to respond to terrorism. That kind of a statement from an administration official ought to make us all very nervous. To make the point crystal clear, the OMB Director said last week, ``Our adversaries are not encumbered by a lot of rules. Al-Qaida doesn't have a three-foot-thick code. This department is going to need to be nimble.'' Ha-ha. How nimble was the administration when we sought to pass the supplemental appropriations bill, with $3 billion more money for homeland security above the President's budget proposal? How nimble was the agency? How nimble was the administration? They held us up for 5 months. Rules like holding this new department accountable to the Congress and the American people, Mr. OMB Director? Al-Qaida may not be encumbered by constitutional limitations on its powers, but, unlike the OMB Director, I would scarcely argue that al-Qaida sets an example for this Government to follow. I find comments like that to be incredibly ignorant. For all of their blustering about how al-Qaida is determined to strike at our freedoms, this administration shows little appreciation for the constitutional doctrines and processes that have preserved those freedoms for more than two centuries. This administration has made clear its intent to ``reassert'' executive authority, and, to date, it has aggressively tried to curtail Congress's powers of oversight. The President refused to allow the director of the Office of Homeland Security to testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee and other committees, in his capacity as our chief homeland security official. The administration has been secretly planning to introduce special operations troops into Iraq without the consent of the Congress. We had better watch that one, too. That's to say nothing of this administration's attempts to block congressional access to information about executive actions. In reorganizing the Federal Government, the Congress has a responsibility to guard against attempts to also reorganize the checks and balances of the constitutional system. The greatest risk in moving too quickly is that we will grant unprecedented powers to this administration that would weaken our constitutional system of government. Pay attention, the Congress should be seriously concerned about the transfer authority that is being sought by this Administration. The President's proposal provides that ``not to exceed five percent'' of any appropriation available to the Secretary of Homeland Security in any fiscal year may be transferred between such appropriations, provided that at least 15 days' notice--that is all that Congress gets--15 days' notice is given to the Appropriations Committees prior to the transfer. No congressional approval is required after these 200 years. In addition, the President's plan would authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to allocate or reallocate functions and to ``establish, consolidate, alter, or discontinue'' organizational units within the Department, even if established by statute, simply by notifying Congress ninety days in advance. Again, no congressional approval is required. Again, no congressional approval is required. These provisions make clear the administration's attempt to erode Congress' ``power of the purse''. I identified these problems in the President's proposal and wrote to Senator Lieberman and Senator Stevens, ranking member of the Appropriations Committee joined, requesting that these powers not be included in his proposal. What concerns me most is not those problems that I have identified, but rather the assaults on the legislative branch which still remain hidden inside the administration's proposal and are on track to being adopted by the Congress. I am not the only Senator who believes that this process is moving along too quickly. We are all talking about this in the privacy of our offices, behind the closed doors of elevators and in our hideaways. But we ought to come out onto the Senate floor and discuss it before the American people. We are rushing ahead to pass legislation, which many of us think is bad policy. We are rushing headlong to pass a massive bill that few if any of us fully understand. The executive branch is flexing its muscles and worrying about its political backside. The legislative branch needs to protect our constitutional system and consider what will truly protect the homeland and the safety of our people. We must flex our brainpower and analyze this idea carefully. We cannot be brain dead on these vital issues. The stakes are too important. Madam President, I know the administration will be out there across the country saying, let's pass this homeland security bill, and the Senate will be criticized, the Senate leader will be criticized, I will be criticized, other Senators will be criticized, for not having taken up this behemoth proposal and passed it before we close business this week. When the President signs the supplemental, he will have 30 days to decide whether to designate over $5.1 billion as an emergency. That is $5.1 billion. We so designated it. If the President designates one item of that $5.1 billion, he has to designate all items. I have heard that he is not going to sign that; I have heard that he is not going to release that $5.1 billion, by his signature, making it an emergency. The Congress provided that it had to be all or nothing. That is what the Senate and House did to President Clinton when he was President. I voted for that provision. He had to sign all or nothing. I voted for it. And now we have put that same provision in this bill. There is $5.1 billion available to the President upon his signing that as an ``emergency.'' What are we talking about? Within the $5.1 billion is nearly $2.5 billion for homeland security. If the President does not make the designation ``emergency''--get this--the President and others in the administration will lambast the Senate for not having passed the homeland security bill before it goes out for the recess. But what the Senate did pass is a bill, the supplemental bill, which makes available for homeland security at least $2.5 billion of homeland defense funding. All the President has to do is designate it as an ``emergency''. Here is what is involved in the $2.5 billion: Firefighting grants, $150 million; nuclear security improvements, $235 million; $100 million for grants to make police and fire equipment interoperable; port security grants, $125 million; airport security, $480 million; Coast Guard for port security, $373 million; Secret Service, combating electronic crimes, $29 million; law enforcement resources for State and local government--hear this--$150 million; $82 million for the FBI for counterterrorism and information technology enhancement; $54 million for urban reserve and rescue teams; $147 million for cybersecurity improvements to protect our economy; food and water security, $165 million; border security, $78 million; dam and reservoir security, $108 million; the Customs Service, to increase inspections, $39 million. And homeland security is not the only issue, when the President makes the decision to do the ``emergency'' designation. If he decides not to make the emergency designation, he will be blocking funding for the following activities: Election reform, $400 million; combating AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria overseas, $200 million; flood prevention and mitigation in response to recent flooding, $50 million; Department of Defense, over $1 billion for the National Guard and Reserve for chemical demilitarization and for classified projects; for foreign assistance, including embassy security and aid to Israel and disaster assistance to Palestinians, $437 million. For assistance to New York City--I see that one of the distinguished New York Senators has just been presiding. Let me remind her that in this ``emergency'' designation package, the assistance to New York City in response to the attacks of September 11, including funds to monitor the long-term health consequences of the World Trade Center attacks on the health of police, fire, and other first responders, and for recovery costs for the Securities and Exchange Commission office that was in the World Trade Center, there is $99 million. Hello, Governor of New York! Get in touch with the administration. Urge the President to sign his name to the package that should be designated ``emergency''. It should be designated emergency by the President so that the moneys will be released for New York. Firefighting suppression funding, $50 million; emergency highway repair funding, including funds to repair the I-40 bridge that was recently destroyed in Oklahoma. Hello, Oklahoma! Get in touch with the White House about this. Ninety-eight million dollars! Hello Oklahoma, are you listening? I ask for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on Thursday, June 27, the Senate Committee on Appropriations, by a unanimous rollcall vote of 29 to 0, approved the allocation to subcommittees for fiscal year 2003. On Wednesday, July 24--just this past Wednesday--Congress adopted the conference report to accompany H.R. 4775, the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill. Today, I submit a revised allocation which has been modified, primarily, to conform outlays for each subcommittee with the outcome on the supplemental. These revised allocations were prepared in consultation with my colleague, Senator Stevens, the distinguished ranking member of the committee, who stands with me committee to presenting bills to the Senate consistent with the allocations. Furthermore, we stand committed to oppose any amendments that would breach the allocations. I ask unanimous consent that a table setting forth the revised allocation to subcommittees be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Madam President, Senator Stevens is on his way. He is the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee and he will share the time with me. I have been informed he has indicated I should proceed immediately with my statement, and he will shortly reach the floor and speak on the conference report himself. The Senate will then vote on the conference report for the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill. This conference agreement provides critical investments in national defense, both at home and abroad. Let me say that again. This conference report provides critical investments in national defense, both at home and abroad. So let the world know that the Appropriations Committee has acted expeditiously, working with the House Appropriations Committee in conference, and that Senators on both sides of the aisle have worked hard with their staffs to provide for these investments in the Nation's defense, both at home and abroad. This agreement is the result of true bipartisan, bicameral cooperation, and I urge its adoption. Last fall, America was in shock. The World Trade Center and the Pentagon had been attacked. Thousands of Americans had lost their lives to the brutal terrorist attacks. Our eyes were opened to the new reality of war in the 21st century, a different kind of war. No longer were we immune from attack on the homeland that we all love. No longer did the great oceans shield our country from the violence that had scarred so many nations elsewhere in the world. The danger was real. The enemy was among us, not just in some foreign land on another continent. We could not ignore the massive gaps in our security any longer. In response, within days of the attacks, Congress adopted a $40 billion emergency supplemental bill to fund our military efforts overseas and to protect Americans from further attacks at home. I say that again. Within 3 days, Congress adopted a $40 billion--not million but $40 billion--emergency supplemental bill to fund our military efforts overseas and to protect Americans from further attacks at home. That funding helped our U.S. troops to bring the downfall of the Taliban, the shakeup of the terrorist al-Quida network, and the start of worldwide commitment to end terrorism--wherever it could end, if we could end it at home, that initial funding paid for more than 2,200 agents and inspectors to guard our long, porous borders with Canada and Mexico. The foreign student visa program, which has been identified as one of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's chief loopholes, is undergoing a tighter tracking system because of funding that Congress this body and the House included in that initial funding package. Across the country, local police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical teams are receiving new training and equipment to handle threats that, before last fall, they hardly considered possible. Who would have imagined that their community fire department and paramedics would need training on how to respond to a chemical or biological or radiological attack? Bake sales and bingo nights could not possibly fund terrorist response efforts. Congress had a responsibility to respond, and Congress did respond. We responded within 3 days. We knew what our duty was. We knew where our duty lay-- and we acted. Federal law enforcement also benefited from the work of this Congress, from the work of this committee, this Appropriations Committee. Because of the funding contained in the initial supplemental bill, the FBI started to hire hundreds of new agents. Because the Appropriations Committees in both Houses appropriated the moneys, more than 300 additional protective personnel were hired to protect the Nation's nuclear weapons complex. Air marshals are coming on board to protect our planes. Madam President, 750 food inspectors were hired to ensure the safety of the meals served at America's kitchen table because--and they were able to do this--because this Appropriations Committees, which I chair, and which Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska has chaired before me, and on which he now sits as the ranking member, because this committee acted in a bipartisan way. No split; no aisle between the two parties on the Appropriations Committee. We joined together. We did not have to be told. We did not have to be ordered. We knew where our duty lay. So 750 food inspectors were hired. These are just a few, just a few of the examples of the good work that came about because of the investments, the infusion of funds by Congress, starting with the Appropriations Committees, because of the commitment of the men and the women of this body to identify the gaps in homeland security and invest funds--your money, the taxpayers' money--to close those gaps. In the months that followed that first supplemental, many congressional committees held hearings on homeland security. In the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senators Stevens of Alaska and I convened 5 days of hearings. They were long. They were arduous. They were time consuming. They were tiring. Members heard from mayors. Members heard from Governors. Members heard from county officials. We received testimony from police officers, from firefighters, from local health officials, from terrorism experts, from experts on port security, from experts on water security and nuclear security. Seven Cabinet Secretaries and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, appeared before this Appropriations Committee. The House Appropriations Committee did not hold a hearing. The Senate Appropriations Committee held a hearing. And Senator Stevens and I joined in selecting everyone. Everything was done in a bipartisan way. So seven Cabinet Secretaries and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency appeared before the Committee, as well as two former colleagues--Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia and Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire. What we learned was eye opening. What we learned was that despite all of the efforts of Congress and of the men and women at the local level, the task before us was massive. As a result of the incredible backlog of homeland security needs, one truth was clearly evident; namely, this country was not prepared. We are vulnerable today. Earlier this summer, it seemed the administration issued another terrorist warning to the American people almost daily. Those warnings only underscored the fact that the new enemy lives in our midst--here among us. So, as Christopher Wren would say, if you seek my monument, look about you. If you seek the enemy, look about you. He is somewhere. He is invisible. But he is sure in our midst. So the enemy, the new enemy, lives among us, moving through our society with ease, crafting life-threatening weapons with everyday aspects of life: Tanker trucks, postal mail, airplanes, waste radiological material from hospitals and energy plants. Any of these, and more, we are told can be fashioned into weapons to cause death, destruction, fear, panic. The Appropriations Committee of the Senate heard testimony that indicated America's adversaries could cripple the U.S. economy without great difficulty. That was one of the main objectives of the enemy. They could cripple the economy, but at a far greater cost than any corporate scandal even. The enemy can disrupt the economy without great difficulty and at far greater cost than even any corporate scandal, and the roots of a corporate scandal are running deep, as we know. Yet what we do not know is the most vexing: Where will the terrorists attempt to strike next? And when? We may not know the answer to those questions until it is too late and the attacks are upon us. What this Congress has a responsibility to do is to invest in protections that work to prevent attacks before they can occur, and we must help to train our emergency responders to be prepared should another attack strike within our border. We need to do more. We need to do more now. That is why the conference report before the Senate is so critical. This afternoon, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee is writing legislation to create a new Department of Homeland Security. But that Department, no matter how well crafted, will take time before it can be an effective tool against terrorism. I am thankful for the fact that the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, sits on that committee. We all know where the holes are in our protections--borders, ports, at our nuclear facilities, and throughout our transportation system. If we know where those holes are, then surely the terrorists know, don't you think? We should not wait--we must not wait--for the next fiscal year or the next calendar year to plug the holes in our homeland security. Congress and the President should make the critical investments that will protect Americans now--today!--without delay. This conference report makes those investments. It directs $6.7 billion for homeland security initiatives, including $3.85 billion for the Transportation Security Administration. Another $14.4 billion will allow the men and women in the Armed Services to continue to track down those responsible for the terrorist attacks almost 11 months ago. The conference report also fulfills Congress's promise to the people of New York to provide $20 billion to help them recover from the attacks on the World Trade Center with a final installment in this bill of $5.5 billion. The remainder of the funding will go toward other national emergencies including fire suppression in the West, flood recovery efforts in the Midwest and South, and veterans' health care. The shortfall in the Pell Grant program is resolved, and Amtrak, the nation's passenger rail service, will be able to stave off bankruptcy, because there are $2.5 billion included in this conference report for Amtrak. This is a balanced bill, a responsible bill, and one that I hope the President will sign. I hope he will sign all of this emergency funding into law quickly. Why do I say ``all of this emergency funding''? I say that because Congress gives the President a choice. We have stated that it is the Congress's position that these investments are an emergency and they should be made. If the President signs this bill, he will have 30 days to decide whether to agree with Congress and designate more than $5.1 billion in this legislation as an emergency. If he does not make the emergency designation, the funds cannot be spent. How much time do I have?

Mr. BYRD. Within the $5.1 billion there is nearly $2.5 billion for homeland security. That includes funding for firefighters, police officers, port and border security, and airport security, search and rescue teams, food safety, drinking water safety. Let me back up just a moment. The self-imposed interruption might cause listeners to lose sight of just where we were. So we say the President has 30 days in which to decide whether to agree with Congress and designate more than $5.1 billion in this legislation as an emergency. If he doesn't make the emergency designation, the funds cannot be spent--I am talking about the President. If he doesn't make the designation, the funds can't be spent. Within the $5.1 billion--that is what we are talking about-- included as emergencies, within that $5.1 billion which the President must agree to if it is to be spent, there is nearly $2.5 billion for homeland security. That includes funding for firefighters, police officers, port and border security and airport security, search and rescue teams, food safety, drinking water safety. If the President does not make the emergency designation, he will block nearly $2.5 billion in homeland security investments. I hope that the President will join with Congress in this bipartisan approach to homeland security, declare these items to be an emergency, and make these important investments immediately to protect the American people from terrorist attacks. In addition, if the President decides not to make the emergency designation, he also will block funding for the National Guard and Reserves; election reform; combating AIDS, tuberculosis; and malaria overseas; flood prevention and mitigation; embassy security; aid to Israel and disaster assistance to Palestinians; wildfire suppression; emergency highway repairs; and veterans health care. These critical appropriations for the American people have been delayed for too long, sometimes as a result of Administration intervention, and the time has come for its speedy passage and the President's signature. Once again I want to thank my Ranking Member, Senator Stevens, the former chairman of this committee, for his dedication, his assistance, and, indeed for his leadership on this bill. If it were not for Senator Stevens, his work, this bill would not be here today. Without his hard work and constant efforts, we would not be here to present this conference report to the Senate today. I also thank our House colleagues, Chairman Bill Young of Florida and Ranking Member David Obey of Wisconsin, for their cooperation and commitment to the well- being of the American people. Between the supplemental bill last fall and this conference report, Congress has approved $15 billion for homeland security initiatives, $5.3 billion above the President's request. This legislation is a real victory for the American people. It speeds protections that are so desperately needed at our borders and our ports. It provides vital training for police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel. Through this legislation, Congress is making investments today that will help to protect Americans from terrorist attack for many years to come. I urge my colleagues to support this conference agreement, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for an additional time not to exceed 7 minutes and that my partner, my fellow Senator, my colleague, may be also allowed that time, and that the time for the vote be changed accordingly.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, how much time is allotted for debate on the conference report?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the Senate will soon have before it the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations conference report. This legislation provides for the defense of this Nation, both at home and abroad. Specifically, the bill provides $14.4 billion for the Department of Defense. It allocates $5.5 billion to New York to complete the promise made to provide $20 billion to help recover from the terrorist attacks on September 11. Another $1 billion is for Pell grants, $417 million for veterans' medical care, $400 million for election reform grants, and $2.1 billion for foreign affairs. The bill also provides $205 million for Amtrak. Amtrak is an integral piece of the Nation's transportation network. For many rural communities, Amtrak represents the only public transportation connection to the rest of the Nation. But without the funding contained in this bill, that connection is in danger of being severed. Because of growing financial pressures, Amtrak needs an infusion of funding soon or else it faces bankruptcy. The $205 million included in this supplemental appropriations bill will stave off bankruptcy and give the passenger railroad, which is under new management, time to craft sound plans for the future. Most importantly, this bill provides $6.7 billion for homeland security, including $3.85 billion for the Transportation Security Administration. That is why this funding bill is so important. This funding will take steps now--without delay--to plug the holes in our Nation's defenses here at home. Congress has not hesitated when it comes to funding homeland security efforts. In two supplemental bills-- the one approved shortly after the attacks and the one before the Senate today--Congress has invested $15 billion to protect Americans from another terrorist attack and to better respond should, God forbid, another attack occur. The funding initiatives shaped by Congress have helped to hire more border patrol agents, increase the scrutiny of cargo shipments at our seaports, and accelerate the purchase of vaccines against smallpox. We have funded critical training and equipment purchases for local police, fire, and medical personnel. We have helped to train doctors and local health departments to detect and treat a biological or chemical weapons attack. The money allocated in December has helped to hire more than 2,200 INS border agents and Customs inspectors on the northern and southern borders. The INS is now implementing a system for tracking foreign students in this country--a system funded in the first supplemental bill. The Nation's police, fire and medical personnel are getting better training and equipment for detecting and responding to potential biological, chemical or nuclear attacks. The FBI is hiring hundreds of new agents. 750 more food inspectors and investigators are being hired. The number of ports with Food and Drug Administration investigators is being doubled. 324 additional protective personnel are being hired to protect our nuclear weapons complex, and additional resources are being spent on efforts to destroy or secure nuclear materials overseas. The legislation that will soon be before the Senate today will accomplish even more. It will accelerate the purchase of bomb-detecting machines at airports and provide much-needed resources at the local level. The funding will strengthen port and border security; tighten protections at our nuclear facilities; and better ensure the safety of food and drinking water supplies. The legislation provides $701 million for first responder programs, $343 million above the President's request. This conference report, which will be voted on tomorrow morning, includes $150 million for firefighters, with the funds going directly to the local fire departments. In the spring, when the firefighter grants that Congress allocated in the $40 billion supplemental where made available, more than 18,000 fire departments across the country applied for assistance totaling more than $3 billion. Yet only $360 million was available to meet the demand. The administration did not request any additional funding for this program. However, the need is clear. Our first responders want to be prepared to respond to attack; Congress and the President need to provide the necessary resources so those first responders will be ready. And in this supplemental bill, State and local governments will receive $100 million to improve interoperability of communications equipment for fire, police, and emergency medical technicians. The inability of local police and dire departments to communicate with each other when responding to the World Trade Center attack has been identified as a major Achilles' heel in a defense of our homeland. The funding in this legislation will help to eliminate that inability and to develop uniform standards for interoperable State and local law enforcement, firefighting and emergency medical communications equipment. The administration requested no funding for this important need. Another $54 million, $22 million above the President's request, will strengthen the Federal Emergency Management Agency's search and rescue teams. Currently, there are 28 FEMA search and rescue teams around the country that can be deployed to major disasters to assist local first responders in search and rescue operations. This funding will be used to upgrade equipment and training for responding to events involving a biological, chemical, radiation or nuclear attack. One of the major weaknesses in our homeland security is the virtually non-existent protections at the Nation's ports. Cargo containers are piled up by the thousands at ports, depots, and huge outdoor warehouses. American ports are home to oil refiners, chemical plants, and nuclear facilities. A hijacked vessel that crashes into a port could be used to ignite volatile fuels or gases and produce an explosion that equals one caused by hundreds, maybe thousands of tons of dynamite. American ports receive 16,000 cargo containers per day and 6 million containers each year, but less than five percent of those containers are inspected. That means a terrorist has at least a 95 percent chance of sneaking weapons of mass destruction into the United States. That is not acceptable. Congress, through this supplemental legislation, provides $739 million for port security programs, $465 million above the President's request. This conference report includes $125 million for port security grants through the Transportation Security Administration. Last fall, Congress approved $93 million of unrequested funds for port security grants. DOT received $692 million of applications for the $93 million we provided. The administration did not request additional funding for this purpose. Another $528 million in this bill is for the Coast Guard for port and maritime security, $273 million above the President's request. Increased funds would be used to expedite vulnerability assessments at our Nation's ports, rather than follow the administration's slower plan to do the assessments over the next 5 years. The money would add two new maritime safety and security teams; purchase a total of 6 homeland security response boats; and expand aviation assets as well as the shore facilities to support them. Another $39 million would help the Customs Service to target and inspect suspect shipping containers at overseas ports before they reach American ports. The administration requested no funds for these activities. Another major concern is the security of the Nation's nuclear facilities. The U.S. Department of Energy needs funds for this effort, but the Office of Management and Budget chose not to forward the Department's request to Congress. This legislation recognizes the need, heeds the warnings, and provides $235 million to improve security of the nuclear weapons stockpile, national nuclear labs, and nuclear weapons plants. Funds are included to establish a ``911'' system for local first responders to call when confronted with nuclear hazards, enhanced funding for the National Center for Combating Terrorism, expansion of radiological search teams, and establishment of a National Capital Area Response Team at Andrews Air Force Base. Just a few weeks ago, the White House warned of a possible terrorist attack on the Nation's banking system. It was a vague threat, but the potential for a terrorist organization to use computers and technology to short-circuit our financial system is clear. That is why this conference report includes $147 million--$128 million above the administration's request--for cyber security to help deal with the threat to Federal and private information systems. Our long and porous land borders represent a daunting challenge in terms of homeland security. The Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Customs Service are already hiring more than 2,200 agents and inspectors with the funding Congress allocated in December. This legislation on which we will vote tomorrow, takes the next step, providing $120 million for border security, including $32 million for Immigration and Naturalization Service construction to improve facilities on our Nation's borders and $25 million for better equipment. When it comes to security at the Nation's airports, no one should doubt Congress' commitment. I note that, earlier today, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation testified at a hearing and charged that Congress is hamstringing his new Transportation Security Administration. Secretary Mineta has complained about a lack of flexibility in Congressional funding. Before the Transportation Secretary takes shots at Congress, I wish he would consider the facts. I hope that he will. This legislation provides $3.85 billion for the Transportation's Security Administration. The conference report provides $471 million for unrequested airport security efforts, including $150 million to ensure that all small and medium airports have funds to implement the FAA's new airport security guidelines and that large airports have some additional funding to meet those requirements. $225 million is provided above the President's request for explosives detection equipment and $42 million is provided to improve the security of the FAA air traffic control system. In light of the recent tragedies at the Los Angeles International Airport, when a man walked to an airline ticket counter and started shooting, Congress provides $17 million to improve airport terminal security. In addition, $15 million is provided for improved air to ground communications for the air marshals. If there is a problem on a plane, the security personnel on the ground need to know about it. The Transportation Secretary has charged that less flexibility translates into less security at our airports. Well, last fall, when Congress approved the $40 billion emergency supplemental, we gave the administration flexibility. The President had the authority to allocate $20 billion and he gave $1.3 billion to the Transportation Security Administration. But did that flexibility lead to efficient government? Not necessarily. The Transportation Secretary, while pointing a finger at Congress, ignores the fact that his hand-picked Under Secretary of Transportation Security promptly spent $418,000 to refurbish his personal office in what I am told is a beautiful mahogany. That must be one of the most stunning offices in the entire Department of Transportation. I would suggest that the Secretary's finger pointing be flexible, and that he turn his finger to his own department. Try that, Mr. Secretary. He cannot in good conscience charge Congress with the inefficient operations of the Transportation Security Administration when is own personnel have wasted money and opportunity, missed their own internal deadlines for improving airport security, and failed to provide adequate budget information to Congress. Instead of looking for someone to blame for failures, the Transportation Secretary should be working internally to fashion a much more efficient and responsive Transportation Security Administration. Another area of focus for this Congress is nuclear non-proliferation. We have heard a great deal of discussion about the potential for a ``dirty bomb''--a small nuclear device no larger than a briefcase that, if exploded, can contaminate a broad area with radiation for many years. The best way to stop a dirty bomb is to minimize the opportunity for terrorists to get their hands on nuclear material. This supplemental bill includes $100 million to protect fissile material abroad, purchase radiation detectors, and establish international standards for securing fissile material. The Department of Defense will receive, through this legislation, $14.4 billion for its activities around the world. There can be no doubt as to the commitment of Congress to the men and women in the Armed Forces. We will always ensure that they have the resources and equipment necessary to fulfill their mission to protect American interests throughout the world. However, the Secretary of Defense, in the Administration's supplemental request, asked for authorities that are currently invested in other Cabinet secretaries and in the Congress. The Defense Secretary asked for the authority to spend $100 million in foreign countries as he sees fit. Congress said no. The Defense Secretary asked for the authority to pay bounties for the death of those he deems to be terrorists. Congress said no. The Defense Secretary asked for the authority to spend $30 million to indigenous groups around the world who arguably are assisting in the war on terrorism. Congress said no. The Framers of the Constitution crafted a delicate balance between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the Federal Government. These new authorities for the Secretary of Defense would jeopardize that balance. Congress should not give this Secretary--or any other Secretary--extraordinary authority for the sole purpose of making the Secretary's job easier. If the President signs this bill, he will have 30 days to decide whether to designate over $5.1 billion as an emergency. If he does not make the emergency designations, the funds cannot be spent. Within the $5.1 billion, there is nearly $2.5 billion for homeland security. If the President does not make the emergency designation, he will block nearly $2.5 billion in homeland security investments, many of which I have just outlined. Firefighters. Police officers. Port security. Border security. Airport security. Search and rescue teams. Food safety. Drinking water safety. All these and more are involved. I hope that the President will join with Congress in this bipartisan approach to homeland security. I hope that he will declare these items to be an emergency, and make these important investments immediately to protect the American people from terrorist attacks. In addition, if the President decides not to make the emergency designation, he also will block funding for the National Guard and Reserves. He will block funding for election reform. He will block funding for combating AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria overseas. He will block flood prevention and mitigation; embassy security; aid to Israel and disaster assistance to Palestinians; wildfire suppression; emergency highway repairs; and veterans health care. These critical appropriations for the American people have been delayed for months, sometimes as a result of administration intervention. The time has come for its speedy passage and the President's signature. The Senate Appropriations Committee held 5 days of hearings on this bill and benefited greatly by hearing testimony from our Nation's first-responders, terrorism experts, mayors, Governors and Cabinet officials--from seven departments and from the Director of FEMA. We have produced a fair and balanced bill that fills many of the gaps in our homeland defense that were identified in our hearings. I want to thank, once again, my friend and the Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee, the Senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Ted Stevens, for his cooperation, for his leadership along the way in the conduct of the hearings, the markup of the bill, in the debate on the floor. I also want to thank our House counterparts, Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. ``Bill'' Young and Ranking Member David Obey for their cooperation and commitment to completing action on the legislation. I would be recreant if I did not thank the staffs who have worked so hard to finish this bill. On the Republican side, I thank Steve Cortese and Andy Givens and all of the professional and subcommittee staffs. On the Democratic side, I thank the Committee Staff Director, Terry Sauvain, my Deputy Staff Director Charles Kieffer, Edie Stanley, and Nancy Olkewicz, and all of the professional and subcommittee staffs for their long, long, long hours and days and weekends. Their tireless efforts have resulted in legislation, this legislation that we will vote on tomorrow, legislation that will help to protect American lives. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the very distinguished Democratic whip for his observations. Senator Reid is a member of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate. So he partook of the action on this bill all along the way. He was present in the hearings that this Appropriations Committee held early in the year on this bill. I believe it was April. This bill is not the first occasion in which the Senate Appropriations Committee has taken the lead in acting to strengthen our homeland security. This committee led the way last year. The Appropriations Committee in the Senate appropriated $4 billion above the President's request last year. Of course, I know we are accused of spending money, but that is the money we are spending for the security of the American people for their homeland, their homes, their schools, their churches, and their children. That is the money we are spending. Last year we exceeded the President's request for homeland security by $4 billion. That was done in a bipartisan fashion. It wasn't done just by Democrats on the committee. But the Republican members of that committee joined all the way. The President threatened last year to veto that bill. Does the Senator remember that? The President said last year he would veto that bill because it contained $4 billion more than he requested last year. This year that bill came to the floor with the solid support of the Republicans and Democrats on that committee. It was unanimously supported. It increased the homeland security part above the President's request by $3 billion. As we have gone through the process--it was a long, dragged-out effort when it came to working with the other body on the conference. We finally had to yield and come down from the $3 billion to $1.4 billion in additional money over the President's request for homeland security. Again, all the way, I am proud to say, we have a bipartisan group in that committee that walks step by step and shoulder to shoulder to my colleague, Senator Stevens, and I. We don't have any quarrels. We don't have any differences. We don't have any partisan discussions. We don't have any partisan bickering, nor do the members on the committee. The distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, is a member of that committee. I served with his father. I believe his father sat right here. I believe his father sat right there in that chair when the son, in whom his father was well pleased, was around these premises and knew a great deal about the Congress and worked in the Congress. He worked in his precincts. We don't have any middle aisle in our committee. It was a joint effort on the part of Republicans and Democrats in close ranks and voting to support moneys for the security of the American people. These are moneys that are in this conference report. When it comes to homeland defense, this Appropriations Committee has been right out front. I am very proud of the way we have been able to do our work and work together. It has been a long time since this committee started on this bill. I guess the budget was sent up here last February. It has been all that long time. Here we are in July with the conference report that we will be voting on tomorrow morning. I thank the distinguished Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the U.S.-China Security Review Commission on Monday released its first annual report, as directed by the Congress in its authorizing statute, P.L. 106-398, October 30, 2000. It is a broad- ranging analysis, with major recommendations for consideration. I will ask unanimous consent that the Executive Summary be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The report is extensive, thorough, and disturbing in many respects. It paints a detailed portrait of a China determined to: acquire a vast array of high technology; broaden and deepen its industrial base; expand its research and development capabilities; and attract substantial amounts of American and other foreign investment. China is on the move. But, it is worthwhile to note that China pays for much of its progress through a highly imbalanced trade relationship with the U.S. Last year the U.S. trade deficit with China exceeded $80 billion U.S. dollars. One could simply say that the Chinese are intent on entering the modern era, and on building a strong nation state, financed by aggressively exporting goods to the U.S. But, Mr. President, there are some very troubling aspects of the U.S./Chinese relationship. The Commission found that U.S. policy toward China has been and is alarmingly fragmented. It lacks consistency and depth. U.S. policy toward China has often been driven solely by commercial interests, specific human rights issues, or by a particular military crisis, rather than by a comprehensive examination of all the issues which impact upon this relationship. Furthermore, over the last 30 years U.S. policy toward China has been dominated by strong Executive branch personalities and compulsive secrecy. There seems to be little sustainable consensus on the long-term national interests of the U.S. vis a vis China. The Report makes numerous recommendations designed to elicit a more comprehensive understanding of China by U.S. policy makers and by the general public. These include rebuilding the Library of Congress' China collection, new language and area studies programs, new efforts at open source collection by the intelligence community, and an upgrading of the Federal Broadcast Information Service. The fact is that we as a nation know far too little about China, and we need a better level of effort in this regard. There is new information and analysis in the Commission's report regarding Chinese access to U.S. capital markets, and a renewed call for more effective consultations and consensus-building between the President and Congress on Taiwan policy. The report also recommends new tools which should be employed to encourage the Chinese to comply with their commitments--in proliferation practices, prison labor agreements, intellectual property agreements enforcement, and most importantly, with their far-reaching obligations under the WTO. The report calls for increased scrutiny of corporate activities in China, and a new corporate reporting system to reveal what investment, R&D and technology is being sent to China. Transparency, disclosure and corporate accountability should be required of U.S. firms' operations in China, and are certainly of much interest to American shareholders and investors. I am pleased that the Report is a strong bipartisan effort, a broad consensus of nearly all the Commissioners, who approved it by a vote of 11-1. It is both an educational report and an action document. Each chapter highlights findings and makes recommendations for action which flow from those findings. The executive summery gives the key 21 recommendations, but additional valuable proposals are found at the end of each chapter. Some of the Report's key findings about the U.S.-China relationship include: The U.S.-China bilateral relationship is poorly coordinated and lacks a sustainable consensus among elected officials in Congress and the Executive branch; China's leaders see the United States as a declining power with important military vulnerabilities that can be exploited; There are serious differences in perceptions each country holds of the other and a potential for misunderstandings that are compounded by the lack of bilateral institutions for confidence-building and crisis- management; There is plausible evidence that the burgeoning trade deficit with China will worsen despite China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO); The U.S. may be developing a reliance on Chinese imports that could in time undermine the U.S. defense industrial base; The U.S. lacks adequate institutional mechanisms to monitor national security concerns involving Chinese and other foreign entities seeking to raise capital in the U.S. debt and equity markets; China provides technology and components for weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems to terrorist sponsoring states, presenting an increasing threat to U.S. security interests, in the Middle East and Asia in particular. Radical changes in China's economic fortunes have been fueled by U.S. investors and multinational firms, and have come with severe sacrifices in the form of lost American manufacturing jobs. Mr. President, there is much to recommend in this Report, and many recommendations which may be of interest to my colleagues. I congratulate the Chairman and all of the commissioners who authored this fine report, as well as the staff members of the Commission who worked tirelessly on this important endeavor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, there is a game being played with the critical issue of homeland security. It is a political game which could have disastrous consequences. The White House is talking big about homeland security, exhibiting strong presidential interest in homeland security, trotting out proposals for a whole new Department of Homeland Security, and publicizing alerts. It is strange, then, strange indeed that despite its public pronouncements on homeland security, the White House refuses to back the rhetoric up with resources. Twice--once last year, and currently--large bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress have withstood veto threats from this administration and insisted on significant funding increases for homeland security. President Bush's own appointees have all but begged the President's OMB Director for additional funds to fight the war on terrorism here at home. Many of these requests are urgent and quite compelling, yet the OMB has continually rejected a surprising number of these pleas. It is as if this administration has delivered an internal unfunded mandate to its own cabinet secretaries and Federal workers. Fight the war on terrorism on every front here in the homeland. Fight vigorously. Spare nothing, but make sure you do it on a shoestring. Protect our people here at home, but protect them on the cheap. The Department of Energy proposed a total of $380 million to fund projects to enhance the security of radioactive materials here at home and overseas, including: better security measures to safeguard the transport of nuclear weapons within the United States; improvements in the ways in which we secure and store plutonium; cleaning up, transporting, and protecting low-level radioactive materials that could be used in a ``dirty bomb.'' For these and similar activities $380 million was asked for by the Secretary of Energy. But do you know what? That request fell on deaf ears at the Office of Management and Budget. Despite all of the worrying and nail biting about what would happen if some lunatic obtained radioactive material and detonated a ``dirty bomb'' on the mall in Washington or in some other large city, the OMB provided less than $27 million or about 7 percent of the Energy Department's request. Let me say that again: The OMB provided less than $27 million or about 7 percent of the Energy Department's request. This urgent supplemental bill contains $361 million for the Department to dedicate to securing these dangerous and vulnerable materials. That is $334 million above the amount requested by the President. Another striking omission from the Bush supplemental request for homeland security involved efforts to deport those individuals who entered the country on visas that have now expired. Currently there are an estimated 8 million undocumented immigrants in the United States and only 2,000 interior immigration enforcement officers nationwide. This is a very dangerous situation. We know that terrorists live and plot their crimes among us. The Immigration and Naturalization Service requested $52 million for analysts to help find, arrest and deport high-risk individuals who have disregarded the departure dates on their visas. OMB said no, nada, nix. It denied the entire request. The supplemental bill, now stuck in conference because of the administration's latest demands, contains $25 million that the Appropriations Committee believes the INS can usefully spend this year to address the need to locate some of these individuals. We also include $88 million for construction and equipping of border facilities, and for improved border inspections. Last fall, OMB denied $1.5 billion in funding which the FBI requested in the wake of the attack on the twin towers in New York. Part of the FBI's funding request was for acceleration of a new computer system that will be at the heart of all communications within the bureau. Also included in the request were funds to enhance the internal security of the FBI's systems and procedures; for ``cyber cops'' and for hazardous materials personnel. The Congress provided $212 million above the President's request to permit completion of the new computer system much earlier than would be allowed under the Bush plan. In addition, we have included--the Appropriations Committee--$175 million for cyber security and counter terrorism in the supplemental that the White House is now delaying--delayed at the last minute last Thursday evening. I could go on, but suffice it to say that this administration talks a good game about homeland security but it is unwilling to put its money where its mouth is. Over this past weekend, during his radio address, the President said that, ``Strengthening our economy and protecting the homeland and fighting the war on terror are critical issues that demand prompt attention.'' I agree. I only wish that the same message would be made clear to the Office of Management and Budget. We have worked diligently in the Congress to get these critical homeland security monies out to federal and local personnel charged with protecting our people. Yet, we have been met by objection after objection by this administration. In March, the President insisted he needed more money for national defense in an urgent supplemental. We gave him every dollar he requested. In addition, the House and Senate provided more money for critical homeland defense needs. Instead of letting the House and Senate work out our differences and get the funding out, the White House started issuing veto threats before the Senate bill was even off of the floor. And last Thursday evening, just as all differences appeared to be worked out, the White House bomb throwers blew up the agreement with new demands. It makes one wonder how much the White House really needs that defense money and it certainly causes one to wonder how serious this administration really is about homeland security. Senator Stevens and I have beseeched the White House over and over again to have the Homeland Security Director come before our Committee to tell us about the needs for Homeland Security. Our requests were denied. We held days of hearings with administration officials, local firefighters, policemen, mayors and governors. We did our best and funded the needs as testimony we heard indicated. We wrote a good bill, and we were ready to convene the conference Friday. But our efforts were blown up by the OMB Director, suddenly and completely and with no warning until the very last minute, Thursday evening. So needs go wanting in our military and in our homeland defense effort. There is no excuse for such irresponsibility. Such tactics are not in the best interests of our people. Hollow rhetoric on homeland security will never replace solid funding for these needs. Political gamesmanship over issues so critical to our Nation and our people is irresponsible, arrogant and totally out of line. I deplore the arrogance with which the good faith efforts of both Houses of Congress have been treated by this White House. Apparently the security and safety of this nation and its people have taken a back seat to gamesmanship by a White House that has no respect for the people's representatives or for the people's urgent needs. Under OMB Director Mitch Daniels' stewardship, the Federal budget has gone from a surplus of $127 billion in FY 2001 to an estimated deficit for the current fiscal year of $165 billion. This is a swing of $292 billion in just one year. The President is now threatening to veto the urgent national defense and homeland defense supplemental appropriations bill based on Mr. Daniels recommendation. Why? Because Mr. Daniels asserts that the bill spends too much money. Yet the conference report's spending levels that have been agreed to on a bipartisan and bicameral basis would increase the deficit by only about $600 million compared to the President's request. Mr. Daniels believes that the critical port security, border security, firefighting, law enforcement, nuclear security and other homeland defense programs funded in the supplemental can wait because the bill would increase the deficit by about $600 million, when his failed fiscal policy has resulted in a $292 billion swing in the deficit. The OMB Director seems to have forgotten, or perhaps never learned, that the appropriations process is about more than just numbers. Maybe at OMB, they can be bean counters, but here in Congress we are responsible for understanding what the numbers mean for the American people. Mr. Daniels is cynically focused only on the bottom line. In an effort to make the supplemental bill look smaller, he has proposed rescinding the balance of funds under the airline loan guarantee program. He asserts that this would produce $1.1 billion of savings. Yet these funds under the law can not be spent. There are no real savings here. The Congressional Budget Office would not score savings for this proposal. This is the kind of phony accounting that is getting our nation's corporations in trouble. This phony accounting is proof that Mr. Daniels does not care about homeland defense or about our national defense, or about fiscal discipline. This phony accounting proves that the President's veto threat is only about proving that he can force the Congress to hit some arbitrary bottom line. And the unmitigated gall of a high White House official coming to the Congress with an accounting gimmick at a time when that same White House is decrying phony accounting practices and scandals in the business community is beyond belief. We should not delay this conference one more day. There are some in Congress who suggest that we should throw our hands up on this bill and wait until the next fiscal year to address these priorities. Such statements ignore the critical needs facing the nation for defense and homeland security. Our fighting men and women need this money to prosecute the war on terrorism. Dr. Dov Zakheim--the Defense Department comptroller--said in a briefing on Friday that the Defense Department is hitting a wall and that our people in uniform cannot be paid if the Supplemental Bill is not enacted by the August break. He said in that briefing that there is good will on Capitol Hill, and he is right. We are trying to do the right thing for our people here at home and our fighting men and women in the field. It is deplorable that good will, hard work, and good intentions can be trashed by OMB Director with reckless abandon. I do not think this President or this nation are well-served by tactics and gamesmanship when the stakes are so high. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum be printed in the Record which sets forth the highlights of the $7.2 billion for homeland defense in conference funding levels.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I have the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we can have order in the Senate with Senators in their seats. At least they do not need to be cluttering up the well. I want to say a few words.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.