Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. Mr. President, I understand there is a little bit of grousing and gnashing of teeth concerning the moneys that were appropriated for homeland security in the supplemental appropriations bill last week. Let us stop, look, and listen. In the last several hours, the threats against this Nation from terrorist attack once again were made evident with the arrest of an American citizen who apparently has been working with the ``al-Qaida'' terrorist network, plotting an attack on the nation's capital. Once again, our eyes have been opened to the fact that terrorists live among us. The threats are real. The danger is present. We should not continue to delay actions that will fund immediate steps to protect American lives from attack. Soon, the supplemental bill, which is being criticized by some today, will be in conference. I will fight hard for the $8.3 billion homeland security package that this Senate overwhelmingly approved last week. I hope that President Bush will match his rhetoric on homeland security with support for a funding package that meets so many of the critical security shortfalls in this country. The announcement about yesterday's arrest only amplifies the concerns raised by administration officials within the past few weeks. The Vice President warned that a strike is ``almost certain.'' Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has stated that it is inevitable that terrorists will acquire weapons of mass destruction. Secretary of State Colin Powell has warned that ``terrorists are trying every way they can'' to get nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. And Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said, ``While we prepare for another terrorist attack, we need to understand that it is not a question of if, but a question of when.'' Clearly, we know that the threat exists. We know that terrorists plan to strike. We do not know where or how or when, but we know that they will strike again. The question remains, will we be prepared? Last week, the Senate took steps to address the many gaps in our homeland security network. By a vote of 71 to 22, the Senate voted very clearly to provide critical resources to protect American lives and to try to prevent future tragedies like the one we witnessed last September. Unfortunately, despite all of its rhetoric that homeland security is a top priority, the administration continues to oppose this critical legislation. In fact, the administration has gone so far as to threaten to veto the bill. The President today travels to a water treatment plant in Kansas City, MO, to showcase a piece of his proposed Department of Homeland Security. This piece would create a threat analysis unit, envisioned as part of Mr. Bush's proposed intelligence-analyzing division, that would study the vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure such as water, road, and financial systems. The supplemental bill approved by the Senate and currently opposed by the Bush Administration would put us several steps ahead on this threat assessment. During Senate Appropriations Committee hearings over the last several weeks, Senators learned that more than $400 million is needed for local governments to conduct vulnerability assessments for our water systems. The supplemental bill includes $125 million for cities to assess the vulnerabilities of their water systems and for vulnerability assessments and security improvements to protect rural water systems. The administration did not request funding to help secure our drinking water systems, and it is opposing the Senate-passed supplemental bill that does make appropriations for our drinking water. This spring, the Department of Energy sent the Office of Management and Budget a request for additional funds to secure America's nuclear weapons complex and labs, but the request was turned down. Now the administration has lauded its arrest of one man linked to a ``dirty bomb'' plot. But instead of supporting funds to better secure our nuclear labs and material, the administration is opposing the Senate supplemental bill that contains $200 million for that very purpose. While in Kansas City today, the President is also expected to trumpet his plans to address vulnerabilities within the nation's financial systems. A cyber attack is a real possibility. As Senator Bennett has pointed out, ``In the cyber-age, many of the attitudes we have had about warfare, about vulnerability, about opportunity have to be thought through entirely differently.'' Instead of supporting our efforts to address this threat, the President is opposing the Senate- passed supplemental bill that includes $154 million for cybersecurity to help combat the threat to Federal and private information systems. Today, the President will talk about his support for local communities in the overall homeland security effort. A major part of that local effort is the actions of first responders, namely, local police officers, firefighters, emergency medical teams. The Federal Emergency Management Agency received $3 billion worth of applications from local firefighters for new equipment and training, but FEMA only had $360 million to meet the request. The administration did not ask for any additional funds in its supplemental bill. But the Senate- passed legislation last week does include $300 million to continue to meet this massive gap in our homeland security network. Last week, the President announced a massive governmental reorganization to respond to terrorist threats. I support the concept of a Department of Homeland Security, as do most Members of this Congress, I believe, but there are many details to be worked out and many questions to be answered. We should not wait to address the gaps in our Nation's defenses while this new department is crafted. Terrorists will not swear off further violence until a new department is up and running. We should not delay our efforts to thwart that attack. The appropriations bill the Senate passed last week with a huge margin will do just that. It is time for the administration's rhetoric on homeland security to be matched by action. It is time for the administration to recognize that simply talking about homeland security will not save lives. It is time for the administration to support investments in homeland security, to support the Senate's work to save lives, and to help fill the gaps that currently exist in our Nation's homeland security network. The administration should support the supplemental appropriations bill passed by the Senate last week, and I hope the President will speak to that end. I was down at the White House this morning, and I urged the President to support the supplemental appropriations bill that the Senate passed last week. This bill will go a long way toward matching the rhetoric by the administration. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I will want to move to waive the Gramm point of order for nondefense emergency in the bill.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the bill before the Senate is an emergency supplemental bill. It responds to emergency needs for our military. It provides emergency funds for enormous gaps in our homeland security network. It makes investments today to protect the people of this country against attacks tomorrow. We cannot afford continued delay and dragging of feet. The Nation is unprepared for a biological or chemical attack. Our current public health system is ill funded, fragmented, and unprepared to respond to the threats posed by bioterrorism. We must expand State and local capacity to recognize and to treat deadly pathogens so that we are prepared to deal with weaponized disease. The anthrax-laced letters that were sent through the mail afforded us just a glimpse of the terror that could result from a more serious biological attack involving smallpox or Ebola. We know Bin Laden loyalists have conducted research on chemical and biological weapons at 40 sites in Afghanistan. We know that more than a dozen nations, including China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Russia, and Syria, can produce biological and chemical weapons. So what are we doing about it? Are we taking action? No. Senators are dragging their feet. The Government's seemingly uncoordinated and chaotic response to the anthrax scare and the public's ensuing panic to anything both powdery and white had overwhelmed our public health systems. Many of our local health departments were found impotent and ill prepared, lacking such basic forms of communication equipment as computers and fax machines. Astonishingly, according to the former Director of the Centers for Disease Control, only half of the Nation's public health departments have direct, secure Internet access. State and local health officials will be first on the scene in a biological attack. It is essential that they be capable of quickly identifying a deadly organism and disseminating that information widely and rapidly so that new cases can be caught early and the spread of disease can be stopped. Many local health departments, however, do not possess modern communications systems because of funding constraints. Simply put, in the event of a chemical or biological attack, our local health care providers are probably better able to get more accurate information and more quickly from CNN than they are from other health care officials. So what are we doing about it? Are we taking action? No. Some Senators are dragging their feet. Our Nation's seaports are the soft underbelly of our homeland defense. U.S. ports are home to oil refineries and chemical plants that process noxious, volatile chemicals. There are 68 nuclear powerplants located along U.S. waterways. A hijacked vessel that crashes into a port can be used to ignite volatile fuels or gases and produce a fuel air explosion equal to hundreds of tons of dynamite. Within a mile of the Inner Harbor of Baltimore is a major east coast import and export hub for a broad range of dry and liquid chemicals. If ignited, many are capable of producing ferocious fires, explosions, and clouds of noxious fumes immediately adjacent to such densely populated rowhouse neighborhoods as Locust Point, Highlandtown, and Canton. So what is being done about it? What are we doing about it? Is the Senate taking action? No. Senators are dragging their feet--some Senators. U.S. ports receive 16,000 cargo containers every day--16,000 cargo containers every day--and 6 million containers per year, but only 2 percent of those containers are inspected. That means that a terrorist has a 98-percent chance of sneaking weapons of mass destruction into the United States. Cargo containers are piled up by the thousands at ports, depots, and huge outdoor warehouses. Many big cities, such as Charleston, SC, and New Orleans, LA, were literally built around their ports, and they present an attractive target. The only thing separating that container yard from where people live and work is a barbed-wire fence. Cargo containers that are not inspected are quickly loaded and shipped to practically every town in America on top of ships, trains, and trucks. It would not be difficult for a terrorist to track a container with a global positioning system and detonate a weapon hidden inside. So what are we doing about it? What is the Senate doing about it? The Senate is stalling. The Senate is not moving. Are we taking action? No, we are not taking action. Senators are dragging their feet--some Senators. International authorities have linked 20 merchant vessels to Osama bin Laden. Some of the vessels are thought to be owned outright by Bin Laden business interests while others are on long-term charter. The Times of London reported in October 2001 that Bin Laden used his ships to import the explosives used to destroy the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. So what is the Senate doing about it? Is the Senate taking action? No, no, the Senate is spinning its wheels. Senators are dragging their feet--certain Senators. Nuclear material is easily available if one knows where to look. In January 2001, a panel headed by former Senator Howard Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler found that the threat of terrorists getting their hands on Russian nuclear weapons is the most urgent, unmet national security threat to the United States today. I served with Howard Baker. He is a man of great integrity, knowledge, and wisdom. He is a patriot. Stealing or buying a warhead from Russia would be the quickest way for the terrorists or a rogue state to get a nuclear weapon, but it is much easier to construct a radiological bomb from poor-quality nuclear materials. A radiological bomb, or a dirty bomb as it is sometimes called, does not have a massive explosion, but instead it spreads radioactive contamination by using a conventional explosive. So what are we doing about it? What is the Senate doing about it? The Senate is spinning its wheels. Are we taking action? Is the Senate moving on this bill? No. Senators are dragging their feet--certain Senators. The list of gaps in our homeland defense structure is overwhelming. Senators should be ashamed of holding up action on this legislation. We ought to be doing everything within our power to ensure the safety of the American people to protect their lives and their property, but instead of moving quickly on this supplemental bill, instead of fulfilling their responsibility to protect the American people, some Senators would rather play politics. In other words, they would rather blow up the train. What I fear is that with continued delay, we are making it far too easy for terrorists to blow up anything they want. We ought to move forward with this legislation. We ought to pass this bill. We ought to take steps now to protect the American people from terrorist acts. The administration ought to halt its opposition to this bill. Senator Stevens and I have tried our best to provide money for this country and for the needs of the Nation and for the Nation's defense, both at home and abroad. We held 5 days of hearings. We have brought a bill to this floor that we believe protects the interests of our citizens at home and continues our efforts to fight terrorism abroad. We had good witnesses. We did not omit important Department heads, important officials from the executive branch. I, frankly, have difficulty in understanding the complacency about these matters. We have alerts and prognostications, warnings, dire warnings, from the President, the Vice President, who has indicated quite clearly that another attack by terrorists of such dimensions as September 11 is virtually certain, almost certain. Many other officials in this Government have indicated another terrorist attack on this Nation is a virtual certainty, and yet some people in this body appear to be asleep when it comes to the urgency of providing the funds that may prevent another attack. Some Senators have problems with some of the items in the bill. They know what to do. They can offer amendments. Let us have a vote. They ought to offer amendments and ask for a vote. Come on, bring your amendments. Ask for a vote. Get a vote on your amendment. Yet we have spent 3 full days already on this legislation, much of that time begging Members to come to the Chamber and offer amendments. Those amendments have been very slow in coming. It is obvious there are some in this body who wish further delay. Perhaps they are being prodded and urged by the administration to delay this bill. What does it take to awaken Senators to the emergency nature of our situation? What does it take to jar some of the Members of this body out of the usual political posturing that so bores and distresses the American public? Does it take another horrific attack, with thousands of more lives lost, to focus the attention of the Senate on the urgency of this matter? Cloture must be invoked. We must move this urgent legislation. We must shake off the complacency. We must stop playing politics with this Nation's security and get this bill to conference and on the President's desk. So I urge all Senators today to vote for cloture. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining.

Mr. BYRD. I reserve that time.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. As I understand it--and I am confident I am right--there is only $65 million in the President's request for emergency that we did not approve. The Senator is not on the committee. Let me tell you what we did approve. Fourteen billion dollars, as requested by the President, for the Department of Defense, for the war on terrorism; $1.95 billion for foreign assistance, virtually all of which was either requested or supported by the President.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is making some statements that are simply not true, and I would like to clarify them.

Mr. BYRD. There is $8.3 billion for homeland reform that the Appropriations Committee determines is necessary based on extensive hearings. The Senator was in not in those hearings. The ranking member was in the hearings. They were well attended by Republican Members. There is $5.5 billion requested by the President in response to the September attack on New York City. The Senator has come to the Senate floor ``loaded for bear,'' but he is saying some things that simply are not true about this bill. I think he had a bad dream. I think he had a nightmare. He is not feeling well. He is not feeling well this morning.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator from Texas, I am sorry to say, is apparently having some hallucinations. The President requested--if the Senator will look at the report, the Senator questioned $27,143,519,000. The White House said the very same thing about homeland defense. They did not need the money. They did not want the money. Tom Ridge wrote me a letter--I believe he sent a copy of it to Senator Stevens, or he may have written the same letter to Senator Stevens, I am not sure, but he sent me a letter saying they did not need the money, they did not want the money, they would determine what they needed in due time and tell us what they needed. This Senate added $4 billion for homeland defense last year over the President's request. It is being used; it is making a difference. And after all of the hearings of this committee, before Republicans and Democrats, after all the hearings in which the executive branch participated, this is the outcome. This bill that we have brought to the floor is the result of those hearings. Go back and tell your firefighters, may I say to the Senator from Texas--go back and tell your firefighters, tell your law enforcement people, tell your policemen, tell your health officials, tell those people, tell the people back home they do not need this protection. Tell them; don't tell us. The Senator was not on the committee. I greatly honor the Senator from Texas but he is absolutely wrong. He is dead wrong. He is having dreams. He is having nightmares. He is really wrong. The figures he quoted this morning, if we had the time, I would show, are absolutely false. This committee, 29 members, backed this bill. Fourteen of those members were Republicans. They voted to report this bill, and they are right. So I say to the Senator--if I may have his attention?

Mr. BYRD. Would he please offer amendments. If he doesn't like this bill, offer amendments to take out the money, and then you can tell the people back home, you can tell the policemen, you can tell the firefighters, you can tell the health personnel, you can tell the people at the local level, that their safety doesn't matter. Their safety doesn't matter. What the administration says is apparently what matters. But the administration was wrong last year. The Senate was right last year. The administration is wrong this year, and the Senate is right this year. So I urge Senators to vote for cloture and then let's vote on the amendments. wage index fairness

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the supplemental appropriations bill does include $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to begin planning and design work for construction of a storage facility that would hold specimen collections preserved in alcohol. The House included this amount in its version of the supplemental appropriations bill. The amount is requested by the administration in the Smithsonian's fiscal year 2003 budget estimate. So the administration supports this item. The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History on The National Mall holds one of the largest natural science specimen collections in the world. Most of this collection is preserved in alcohol, an estimated 730,000 gallons of highly flammable liquid occupying 50,000 square feet of space at the museum. The storage space at the museum does not comply with the fire and safety codes, exposing the public--we are talking about exposing the public here--to significant risks. For example, large areas of the main building have no sprinkler system, and there are no firewalls between the newer wings and the older central exhibition spaces of the museum. With the equivalent of several jet planes loaded with fuel--now get this--with the equivalent of several jet planes loaded with fuel now housed on The Mall, the committee has acted responsibly in providing funds to begin the work that will eliminate this hazard. We should not wait until next year. To wait is to take great risks with human lives. Funds can be obligated immediately, thereby accelerating construction of an appropriate storage facility for 6 months to a year. This is a significant fire hazard on The National Mall, and we ought to attend to it now, not wait until next year. The administration supports this item. They asked for it in the 2003 bill. What is wrong with going ahead with it now? The museum informed the committee that construction could begin early. I know it sounds good that we are appropriating money for construction of a storage facility that would hold specimen collections preserved in alcohol. Yes, it has a political sound on which it is easy to beat the drums. But this is something that involves human lives, not just worms, not just insects. It involves human lives. Let someone start a fire down there with all of this inflammable alcohol, and we will be spending more than $2 million, and there will be human lives involved. I urge that the Senate not support the amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. No question.

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely; no question about that.

Mr. BYRD. There is no question about that.

Mr. BYRD. The House put it in the bill.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. This is the design money. The construction will follow. Why not get on with the design money? We could save some time, possibly save some lives. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. BYRD. I believe the motion of the Senator from Alaska was to table the amendment to strike.

Mr. BYRD. I hope Senators will support the Senator from Alaska and vote to table the amendment to strike.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the provision in the bill does not add new spending; rather, it clarifies the allocation of funding provided for coral reef mapping in the fiscal year 2002 Commerce-Justice-State and the Judiciary appropriations bill. This amendment directs $2.5 million of the coral reef funds appropriated in fiscal year 2002 for mapping coral reefs in the Hawaiian Island chain and adjacent areas to complement the general mapping currently planned by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. These funds will be used to begin identifying the location, type, and condition of coral reefs throughout the Hawaiian Island chain. This data will be used by resource managers and will provide valuable information for the northwestern Hawaiian Islands sanctuary designation process. This data will also provide a baseline for future monitoring of Pacific coral reefs. The funds will be administered by the National Defense Center of Excellence for Research in Ocean Sciences through a cooperative agreement with NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Established in 1993 with funds from the Department of Defense, CEROS is product oriented and seeks to advance innovative concepts and new approaches to technology while fully leveraging existing facilities and infrastructure in Hawaii. I urge the Senate to vote down the amendment by the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. This is not designated as an emergency, so it does not violate the Budget Act. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. The supplemental provides $50 million in construction funds toward the modernization of the National Animal Disease Laboratory in Ames, IA, under the Agricultural Research Service Buildings and Facilities account. The full $50 million is offset. This is not designated as an emergency. The money is fully offset. The total construction costs for modernization of this laboratory are estimated at $430 million. To date, including the $50 million in the supplemental, the Congress will have provided $149 million. Mission responsibilities of the Ames, IA, lab include the eradication or control of devastating diseases, including bovine tuberculosis; vaccine development; disease control strategies for scrapie; chronic wasting disease; and others. The National Animal Disease Laboratory combines the research and regulatory responsibilities of the Agricultural Research Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The National Animal Disease Laboratory has been responsible for research on anthrax and it is the national research center responsible for the prevention of mad cow disease in this country. Recent episodes of mad cow disease, foot and mouth disease, and others in the United Kingdom, are stark evidence of the public health and economic disasters that result from such outbreaks. In a May 25, 2001, correspondence to the committee, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary, Ann Veneman, stated: There is an urgent need to renovate and modernize the existing facilities at Ames. Grossly debilitated and inadequate for animal health programs of high national priority, these facilities must be modernized. Supportive documents provided by the Secretary on May 25, 2001, state: If facilities in Ames are not modernized, both agencies could lose their ability to respond to animal disease emergencies. On May 15, 2002, the Secretary again notified the committee on progress of the NADL modernization, including the implementation of fast-track initiatives to begin construction of part of the laboratory in fiscal year 2003, and approval by the USDA Office of General Counsel of a justification for other than full and open competition to hire the architectural/engineering firm. In addition, on May 15, 2002, the Secretary notified the committee that under the current schedule: Construction of the animal health facility will be delayed if less than $331 million is appropriated in fiscal year 2004. So if we fail to provide the $50 million now in the supplemental, the Congress will be required to appropriate $232 million in the next 2 years for this project, just to stay on the USDA's schedule. Construction information from USDA has indicated that longer term construction schedules than the one now in place could result in an additional $117.7 million in construction costs. So the committee has made its judgment that this money is appropriate, and I hope that the amendment will be defeated.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I share the serious concerns of the sponsors of this amendment about the potential for the International Criminal Court to be used as a political weapon against our members of the Armed Forces. This court, a permanent, international institution, is unprecedented in history. The International Criminal Court holds the power to indict and try individuals for war crimes, even if the person is a citizen of a country that is not a signatory to the treaty that creates the Court. It is not difficult to see that rogue states may seek to indict Americans on frivolous charges simply as a means to grind a political axe. On May 6, 2002, the Bush administration renounced the United States' signature on the Treaty of Rome, which creates the International Criminal Court. But because the treaty has been ratified by 60 other countries, the Court will come into existence on July 1. Proponents of this amendment are correct in saying that the United States should take some action to protect our military personnel who serve abroad from unjustified prosecution by the Court. But the amendment proposed to the supplemental appropriations bill goes beyond protecting the members of our Armed Forces. It also authorizes the President to ``use all means necessary and appropriate'' to bring about the release of a ``covered person'' that is being held for trial before the International Criminal Court. Who is a ``covered person''? The amendment defines him to be an American, or a foreign national of one of our allies. Is Congress really prepared to issue a blanket authorization to allow the President to use ``all means necessary'' to rescue from prosecution a person from counties like Argentina, Jordan, or Egypt? There is no way that we could predict the circumstances under which a person from one of these countries could be accused of war crimes. But this amendment gives the President a congressional authorization to use our military to compel the release of a prisoner of the International Criminal Court before Congress even has a chance to examine if the use of force is justified. This is a dangerous and unwise delegation of the constitutional powers of the legislative branch. I must also question why this amendment is being proposed to the supplemental appropriations bill. This very same amendment is included in the State Department authorization bill passed by the House of Representatives. This provision is now being deliberated in a conference committee. Further consideration of legislation relating to the International Criminal Court would best be left to the conferees from committees of jurisdiction, including the Foreign Relations Committee, rather than the members of the Appropriations Committee who will be appointed to the conference on the supplemental appropriations bill. To that end, I support the Dodd-Leahy amendment, which will limit the duration of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act to fiscal year 2002 only. If the proponents of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act believe that there is an urgent need to pass this legislation, then there should be no problem in accepting the Senators' amendment. The Dodd-Leahy amendment would provide for a stopgap protection against the International Criminal Court until such time as the conferees to the State Department authorization bill complete their work. This is a reasonable limit to an intrusion into an issue that is being debated in a conference committee. While we must seek to preserve the sovereignty of the United States by protecting our citizens against prosecution in front of the International Criminal Court, a body which will operate without any checks or balances from any branch of our government, this amendment goes too far in delegating the constitutional responsibilities of Congress over authorizing the use of force. Furthermore, the supplemental appropriations bill is not an appropriate legislative vehicle for addressing this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the Dodd-Leahy amendment.