Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I saw it on television. I saw it on the agonized faces of wives, mothers, and fathers. The terrorists made many widows that day. The terrorists made many orphans that day. I saw it in the sweaty, grimy faces and hands of the workers, sifting through the rubble. I did not need to go. I would like to have gone, but I made the same commitment that those individuals in high places made who did go. Now is the time to keep our commitment. I believe that a promise made is a debt unpaid, and I promised the New York Senators that I would try to help them, and I have done everything I can. I promised the New Jersey Senators, one of whom presides over this Senate at this moment with great dignity, skill, poise. I am keeping that promise. The President promised, and I am trying to help the President keep that promise. I am not being confrontational about it. I want to help. Can we not just join hands once, one time and not be political about this and help to form a more perfect union and fulfill that phrase that is in the preamble of the Constitution? I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator is preeminently correct. As we in my office, our staff, considered this package, we were mindful of the testimony that had been given in the appropriations subcommittees. We were mindful of the subcommittee that had been chaired by Mr. Dorgan, the subcommittee that had been chaired by Mr. Harkin, the subcommittee before which Senator Kennedy and Senator Frist, the eminent ``one'' physician in our midst, before which subcommittee they appeared and recommended moneys be spent for bioterrorism. I was visibly impressed by their testimony and commented on it. They had studied this matter quite at length. They had listened to the specialists in the field. They had listened to the Governors. They had listened to mayors. They had listened to legislators at the State level. They came up with this very tightly drawn package, bioterrorism package. We have used that information, used that material and used the advice of the Senator from Massachusetts and the advice of the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, as we put this package together. So in that bioterrorism area, we have sought to improve the food inspection lines, we have sought to provide for additional studies of advanced and second generation anthrax and other viral agents, and we have sought to provide for the laboratory specialists, the CDS and the labs at the State and local levels, the moneys they need to deal with the next attack. You see, we are not dealing with just the last attack. We are dealing preventively, we hope, against the next attack. Let me take this opportunity to compliment the distinguished Senator. He has been busy day and night, and so has Dr. Frist, in talking about, in working in connection with, this area of safety and welfare for the American people.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his cogent, lucid, and very pertinent remarks. It boggles my mind, it boggles my mind and my imagination that there is opposition to this package. Does the Senator know that we have this package wrapped up and tied with a little blue ribbon, and on that ribbon is the word ``emergency?'' We have an emergency designation on this whole package. If the President wants to use the money, it is there. We say: Here it is, Mr. President. We want to help you keep your promise to the military. There is $21 billion for the military. That is what the President said he wanted for defense. Every penny is there. We have not cut a penny. He said on September 20 to the joint session of the Congress--I was there, the Senator from Massachusetts was there in the House of Representatives when the President spoke. Our Nation has been put on notice. We are not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Here it is. Right here is the defensive measure to protect Americans against terrorism. I am trying to help the President keep his promise. He also promised $20 billion for New York City and the other communities that were involved in that attack. He promised them. We are committed to it. We are trying to help the President. I am not trying to get in his way. I am not trying to embarrass the President. I am saying, Mr. President, let me on your boat. I am trying to help him. Here it is. You don't have to spend it because we have an emergency designation. What is wrong with that? Who can complain about that? The American people want this. They need it. They are entitled to it, and we have a responsibility to give it to them. This is defense. Whether it is in the foreign fields or here in this country, it is defense. When we talk about helping our military, we have military people in this country. They are training in this country. They are in Georgia. They are in South Carolina. They are in California. They are all around the country. They, too, might suffer from a pathogen that comes in the mail. They, too, might suffer from a terrorist act. We are acting to protect our people, whether they are in the military, or whether they are not in the military, in this country and abroad. We are trying to help our President to keep his promise. We are not trying to be a problem for him. We are trying to help him. I am sorry that I think he is being ill advised by some people around him. I will not name of whom I have suspicions. But I think the President is well meaning. I was impressed with the President when he spoke at the House of Representatives. But I think he is being ill advised. This is not a party matter. It is not a Democratic matter. It is not a Republican matter. It is a not a Republican threat. So help us. Let us join together and fulfill that first phrase of the preamble of the Constitution: We the People . . . in Order to form a more perfect Union . . . Let us form that more perfect union. Let us form it here. Let us form now that more perfect union. Let us have no aisles separating Democrats from Republicans on this issue. This is not a political matter. I thank the distinguished Senator for his observations, for his good work in this area, for his support of this effort, and for the leadership he is providing.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield for a question.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, continuing along the line that the distinguished junior Senator from New York was pursuing, on May 10, Chief Jack Fanning of the New York City Fire Department testified before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary on the role of the fire service in responding to terrorism. Fanning, the officer responsible for the New York City Fire Department's hazardous materials operation, said that in preparing for terrorism, ``The emphasis must be placed on the most important aspect of the equation, the first responder, and first responder team.'' Mr. Fanning was talking about the people at the ground level, the people at ground zero, the people who are the first to arrive when the alarm bells ring. Fanning said: If lives are to be saved and suffering reduced, it will be up to them to do it. Meaning the first responders, the first responder team. At an incident, whatever the scale, firefighters and other responders will be there within minutes, some quite possibly becoming victims themselves. Those were the words of Mr. Fanning. His testimony concluded with the following: They [the first responders] will do what they have always done, act to protect the public they serve. Knowing this, let us provide them with the tools they need to perform their duties safely and effectively. Prophetically, Fanning was among the 343 firefighters, including the city's fire chief and most of the senior staff, who died in the World Trade Center collapse. There, as it were, is the voice from the grave telling us again, do something, do it now. The people at the local level need help. They are the people who are the first on the scene, the first to save lives, and perhaps the first to give their own lives. Before I turn again to the chart, this is another chart which visibly displays the situation as explained by the very distinguished senior Senator from North Dakota a little earlier when he talked about the ports on the northern border being closed, and this is what the chart says: ``Stop,'' with a big red sign. This port is closed. Open daily at 9 a.m. Warning, $5,000 fine for entering the United States through a closed port. Nearest open port is 70 miles east at Portal, North Dakota, on Canadian Highway 39. There we have it. We can see the orange cones sitting around the side. My colleagues will recall the distinguished senior Senator from North Dakota said some trucks and automobiles will pull up to the sign and the driver or someone in the car or truck will get out, move the cone, and drive right on through. Or, he said, some will just press their foot on the accelerator and at the speed of 75, 80 miles an hour go right through those cones and leave them in shreds. That is the visual of the warning Senator Dorgan was speaking about. Now let us go back. Some Senators may wish to take a look at the chart so we will set the chart in the chair in front of me. That is what we are trying to help with. We are trying to provide live men and women at those ports of entry that presently are not covered 24 hours a day. That is what we are trying to do in this package. We are saying do it now, do not wait, do not gamble with fate. We have already fallen behind in complying with the aviation security bill recently passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President. The Transportation Secretary said last month on November 27 that the Federal Government cannot meet the January 18 deadline that all checked baggage be screened for explosives. The new law requires that by the end of 2002 all checked luggage be screened using explosive detection systems. That would require 2,000 machines at a cost of $2 billion, according to the Federal Aviation Administration. We cannot wait until next year to provide these funds if our Nation's airports are to comply with the tougher airline security required under that law. Last month, on November 3, a man carrying seven lock-blade knives, a stun gun, and a canister labeled ``tear gas/pepper spray,'' slipped past security screeners at Chicago's O'Hare Airport. It was a stunning breach of security. At a time of heightened scrutiny, everybody should have been looking. The would-be passenger, who had already been stripped of two knives at a prior security checkpoint, made it to the boarding gate before airline personnel in a second check discovered the other weapons. Here was a mini arsenal on two legs walking right straight for the door of the airline, and he was almost there. These incidents follow a recent surprise inspection by the investigators from the inspector general's office of the Transportation Department and of the Federal Aviation Administration at 14 airports across the country. In October, FAA inspector general agents found a man who passed through a metal detector at Dulles International Airport with a knife in his shoe. Now why is he carrying a knife around in his shoe? In September, a man went through security in Atlanta and realized before boarding the plane he had a pistol in his carry-on bag. The American people want tougher security at airports. One can see it in the half-full airplanes taking off from our airports every day. Even after grounding nearly 20 percent of their planes, airlines filled only 63 percent of their seats in October according to the Air Transport Association. So that is still 8 percent less airline traffic than in October of last year, well before the September 11 attacks. Airports need funds to increase the visibility of law enforcement personnel for deterring, identifying, and responding to potential security threats. Additional staff persons are needed to conduct security and employee identification checks through airports. Airports with tighter budgets, particularly smaller airports in rural areas, are unable to absorb these new costs. This package provides $238 million to hire law enforcement personnel and improve protection for you, you who are watching through those television cameras. I simply cannot understand the logic of opposing this package. Who would choose to allow their family to live in constant fear? What parent would repeatedly warn a child of predators on the playground and then send the child out to the park unattended and unprepared to protect himself? What is the sense in telling the people to be brave and then denying the people even the most modest, necessary protections? Budget agreements are certainly no reason. This package bears an emergency designation. With that emergency label, this President could choose, as I have said repeatedly today, not to spend these funds if they prove to be unnecessary to spend at a given time and for a given purpose. But at least the funds would be available should the need arise. This package also contains provisions to ensure that these funds are not counted in the baseline calculations in future years. Get that. I am not trying to build up future budgets. I am not trying to use the funds accounted for in the baseline calculations to increase the budgets in the future years. There is no outyear growth, no multiplier effect. It is a simple, straightforward investment in protection at a time of national crisis. To say we are willing to gamble the safety of the American public on the bet that no additional attacks will occur, that no additional vulnerabilities will surface, that no additional security precautions will have to be taken, defies common sense. It defies logic. The President has declared we are in a state of national emergency. He did that some time ago. His administration has issued three alerts, three broad warnings of possible terrorist attacks, three alerts to the American people. We must respond to our national emergency. We must take matters in hand and guide this Nation through this time of uncertainty, this time of danger, this time of darkness. I urge my colleagues to vote to provide the American people with basic protections at a time when the American people are most vulnerable. Forget your politics. Politics has nothing to do with this--nothing. This package fulfills our commitment to provide $20 billion to New York in response to the September 11 attacks. I urge my colleagues to support this package. On a statue in Atlanta, GA, are these words inscribed in memory of Senator Benjamin Hill, a great Senator, great orator: He who saves his country saves himself, saves all things, and all things saved do bless him. He who lets his country die, lets all things die, dies himself ignobly, and all things dying curse him. Let's vote to save our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. I am aware that he said this. He said that, for the first time we are more likely to suffer casualties on the homefront than among our forces here or abroad.

Mr. BYRD. That is true. We have presently 498 inspectors on the 4,000-mile long northern border--334 individuals who travel from one area to another, the Border Patrol--and at 62 of the 113 ports of entry along the northern border nobody is watching at certain hours of the 24-hour day. We are trying to provide additional moneys in the amount of an extra $551 million to meet these needs and to meet them now. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. That appears to be the case. And it boggles my mind to think that while we have a perfectly logical, commonsense approach here of providing to the President the means whereby he can deal earlier, quicker, more effectively with possible terrorist attacks--we have it in a package here; it is designated ``emergency;'' he can use it, he can not use it--we are being asked to vote against this package. I cannot believe the President is receiving good advice. I have to believe he must be receiving some partisanly political advice from somewhere down the line. It does not make sense. Why would the President be opposed to our providing this now? We do not lose anything by it. We have everything to gain by providing this now. It is our responsibility, it is our duty, to provide for the common defense. And if this isn't common defense, I do not know what it is, if it does not fall within the category set forth in the preamble that we should provide for the general welfare. This, it seems to me, we have to do.

Mr. BYRD. I yield to the distinguished Senator from New York.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend. We are not being confrontational. I have no hesitance whatsoever to be confrontational with the President of the United States or anybody else. Let the President advocate fast track; I am ready for that confrontation, and so is the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. We are not being confrontational. We are trying to live up to our responsibility. We want to work with the President. We want to help the President. I want to help him to keep his commitment when he said on September 20, in that joint session of Congress, ``Our Nation has been put on notice we are not immune from attack. We will''--not maybe--``We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect America.'' Now, Mr. President, this is what we are trying to do. We are trying to help our national leader keep his commitment, and yet there is a veto threatened--a veto--a veto. I cannot believe the President has reached this decision in his own mind--a man who, when he took the oath of office, referred to the Scriptures, referred to the good Samaritan on the road to Jericho. It gave me a new sense of confidence and trust in our President. President Eisenhower, when he was inaugurated, prayed. He didn't call on somebody else to pray; he prayed. Eisenhower himself prayed a prayer. I was impressed and thankful. So this President has the support of the American people in the war effort. There is no question about that. The people have rallied. There is no party spirit in the rallying of the American people behind their President when it comes to the prosecution of a war overseas. Why should they be denied the support of the administration in this effort to deal with future terrorist acts? We are not being confrontational. We want to help the President. We are not interested in this from a political party standpoint. There is no dividing aisle here. We are dealing with the protection of the American people. When we protect the American people, we protect the military men and women who are here in this country. We protect them from terrorist acts. We protect all citizens. We protect the old, the young, the weak, the sick. Why do we have to draw political lines in a matter of this solemn nature? This is not a Democratic proposal. This is not a Republican proposal. Safety, to the American people, has no political designation on it. We have this duty. I think we would be recreant in our duty and it would be criminal if we did not act when we know what has been said to our committees and when we know from what we read in the press that all these things are available. Yet we say, wait, wait. I think we may be in the position of the five foolish virgins. When the bridegroom came, they had no oil in their lamps. He knocked at the door. ``We have no oil in our lamps.'' That is what we are trying to provide here so that we will not suffer the fate of the five foolish virgins. I thank the Senator for his observations and his contributions.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. I am also saying those tunnels that go into Penn Station in New York are traps. They were built before World War I. I am passed 84 years of age, and they were built before I discovered America. They are inadequately ventilated, they are inadequately lighted, and the escape routes are inadequate. There are 500,000 individuals who go through that station every workday. There are 750 trains. Yet how much has been appropriated to prevent another catastrophe there to rebuild the tunnels? Yes, I know. I have heard from the Senator, and I have heard from her senior colleague. They have not been recreant in their duty. They have been very effective. As I say, the Governor of New York has been in my office. I hope he will support this package because it will help him; it will help the State of New York; it will help the people in the fire departments; in the police departments, the paramedics in New York City and other cities in New York. We have that responsibility. I did not go to New York. I am one of the few national politicians who did not go to New York City. I did not need to go.

Mr. BYRD. How much time does the Senator from New Jersey wish?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, let me thank my friend, Senator Stevens, for being the man that he is. He is a Senator. He is a first-class Senator. He lives up to his responsibilities under the Constitution. He reveres this institution. He lives up to his promises to his fellowman. I watched him the other day in the committee and how he said no. He is a Senator who says no and does not lose respect in any way. He does not make you angry. He almost makes you like him when he says no. He is a remarkable man. In this debate, he has given me much of his time. He did the right thing. He offered to let me close the debate on my motion. I could close the debate, but he offered it. I didn't have to fight for it. Madam President, I thank my friend. Let me say this: No matter what the outcome, Senator Stevens will always be my friend. I will not think less of him for his opposition. I will think more of him for the way he has conducted himself. We have two Medal of Honor winners in this body, as far as I am concerned: Danny Inouye; and, although Ted Stevens hasn't formally been presented with such a medal, from me he gets one also. I love him. There is a friend who walketh closer to a brother. And Ted Stevens is one who does that. On November 8, President Bush addressed the Nation. In his remarks, the President asked the American people for courage. He asked them for vigilance, for volunteerism, and for adherence to time-honored values. He called upon them to carry on with their lives. He told them that they had new responsibilities. He asked for their help in fighting this new war on terrorism here at home. I have no quarrel with many of the things which the President said. But the first responsibility of any government is to protect the safety of its citizens. How can we ask our people to shoulder new responsibilities to fight the war against terror, unless this Government first lives up to its most basic duty--ensuring the safety of our citizens on our own soil. Ask those men in Afghanistan: How would you vote on this amendment? Would you vote to give the people back home the security that this amendment provides to them? How would they vote? I have no doubt that a great majority of them would vote for this amendment. They are thinking of their loved ones back here, too, who might any day be subjected to a terrorism attack. Would they take the position, well, let them wait until the spring? Let them wait for the supplemental? How laughable that is. This Government must take positive, proactive steps right now to shore up our homeland. If we are all to become citizen soldiers here at home, let us make sure that we provide those homeland soldiers with at least a front line of defense. I am talking about protecting our airports; screening baggage and passengers thoroughly; protecting mass transit; protecting rail service; guarding our ports; patrolling our nuclear power plants, dams, bridges; guarding chemical plants, food suppliers, water supplies; protecting malls, and stadiums. If 911 taught us anything, it taught us that we are vulnerable in hundreds of ways. It taught us that the unthinkable is not only thinkable--it has happened. We are totally derelict in our duties as public servants if we learn nothing--take no real action--as a result of the horrific experiences of September 11. On November 8, the President's remarks were the classic call to public service. ``Ask what you can do for your country'' was its rhetorical theme. And I applauded him. And while I have no problem with those sentiments, and hope that they do inspire more of our people to service and unselfish action, I think that we should all be aware that the ground has shifted under us. The battleground is no longer just on some distant shore in Afghanistan, it is in New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, California, Washington--indeed anywhere in this great land. I think that the American people now have a right to ask their country what it can do for their safety. Anthrax has turned up in our mail. Where is the massive effort to be sure that we can sanitize our mail for that threat? I have received 12 letters from my constituents since those Twin Towers went down--12 letters I have received. My staff has been evacuated from the southeast corner of the Hart Building. What about the people out there? What about their safety? What about my wife's safety when she goes to the mailbox? My daughter, your daughter, his daughter, think of them. The Postmaster General has been told by this administration that he will only get $175 million for equipment to sanitize mail. He needs at least $1 billion even to begin. Whether the anthrax scare was homegrown or the work of madmen in other lands makes no difference. Poisoned mail poses a new threat to our people and we need to find ways to deal with making mail safe to handle and safe to receive. Smallpox could be a devastating blow to this nation, and indeed to the world, should some madman find a way to unleash its horror on an unsuspecting population. Yet, where is the massive effort to develop a safe vaccine? We need billions to combat this and other bioterrorism threats. We need a commitment to improve our health care facilities--to train personnel to deal with widespread diseases and panic. Especially in rural areas, there is next to no frontline of defense against such bioterrorism attacks. We are like children in the dark being asked to be brave in the face of an enemy we cannot see, and whose actions we cannot predict, and with no ammunition forthcoming from a federal government to which we all pay taxes. What better use of the tax dollar than to protect our citizens as well as we can from the scourge of terrorists who have already killed thousands of Americans. We fail our people and we fail them grossly if we do not do all we can to keep them safe in their own beds. No volunteer effort can do that. No tax break can do that. Only a strong Federal commitment from the government can have any hope of success for such a massive and important task. States will be in the frontline of any homeland defense effort, yet the states are in severe financial difficulty. Four out of five states are sliding into or are in a recession, and state revenues are suffering accordingly. Moreover many of the tax cuts in the House- passed stimulus bill would serve to rob states of the very revenues they need at this time. An October survey by the National Conference of State Legislatures revealed that almost every state is experiencing revenue shortfalls. Forty-three states and the District of Columbia now report that revenues were below forecasted levels in the opening months of FY 2002. At least 36 states have implemented or are considering budget cuts or holdbacks to address fiscal problems. Twenty-two states have implemented belt-tightening measures that include hiring freezes, capital project cancellations and travel restrictions. Six states have convened in special sessions to address budget problems, and several others are considering special sessions later this year or early next year. Yet, we put more on them. We ask them for more. How can we expect States in such shape to mount a frontline defense for our people if the Federal Government does not help with additional moneys dedicated to that cause? That is not just a rhetorical question. The failure to respond may have real and disastrous consequences. We all may cheer the victory in Afghanistan when it finally comes, and we may all breathe a little easier if bin Laden is caught, but we dare not forget that the bin Laden organization has branches in 60 countries. They are here in the United States. They are cunning. They are organized, as we have so painfully learned. Yet there is opposition to the moneys to beef up the computer capabilities of the FBI, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Bureau of Customs--all agencies charged with monitoring the people and goods which come over our borders or for tracking down terrorists once they get here. In short, there has been plenty of lip service paid to homeland security, but talk is much cheaper than a Federal funding commitment. And while it is fine to lift spirits, it is not enough. It is essential to dedicate funding to protect entities most vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Madam President, we have been sent a horrific message. We have awakened with a start. We have suffered bad dreams. Yes, we have suffered nightmares. We have awakened, as I say, with a start. But we dare not return to our slumber. We dare not let our concentration wane and our attention wander. We will not be safer as a nation than we were on September 10, if we do not use the lessons that we have learned to make us stronger now. We will be just as unprepared the next time, God forbid, and it will be the fault of this Government and its complacency. Issuing terrorism alerts is no substitute for taking real action that we know can help minimize the threats. So I plead with my colleagues to support this package which is intended to make our people safer and more confident. It is not a package which divides Americans. It is not a proposal that pits the rich against the poor or corporations against working people. It is a program for the safety of all Americans. It is something Democrats and Republicans can do together for our people. There should be no aisle separation here. It can change the tone in Washington by promoting unity among elected leaders. We can come together for the benefit of every man, woman and child in this Nation. We can improve the climate of fear which is troubling our people and hurting our economy. There is no partisanship--no partianship--in homeland security. It is our solemn duty. And anyone who was living in this country on September 11 knows deep in their heart that we had better start to do something now. Madam President, I am already at the beginning of my 85th year. I have seen wars and depressions and natural disasters of huge proportions. Always, Madam President, always we have had leadership that acted quickly to protect America and her people. Now we are faced with perhaps the most dangerous threat that we have ever faced-- terrorists on our own soil. Terrorist cells in more than 60 countries in this world; terrorists plotting right now--right tonight; while we sleep, they will be plotting; plotting right now--the next attempt to kill massive numbers of innocent people. I do not want to stand on this floor after the next terrible attack and say to my colleagues, ``We should have acted sooner. We might have saved lives.'' None of us want that on our conscience. We can act now. We can do all that we can right now to ``promote the common defense.'' Let us not wait. Let us not give bin Laden more time. Let us not hew to the party line so closely that we sacrifice the safety of our people. The White House pulled out all stops today in the effort on behalf of the legislation that has been given the name of: promote trade security. It is fast track--fast track. And I cannot reconcile what I seem to see: an administration that says, give me fast track, an administration that says, no, but slow down when it comes to providing money for homeland defense; slow down there but give me fast track on trade legislation. We must not go home, Madam President, without doing something to ward off what could be another tragedy of major proportions. I do not understand how any Member of this body could sleep if we fail to take this critical step for the protection of the people who sent us to the Senate. I have been around here so many years, and I have seen so many things. I have seen disasters. And never have I voted against any State that came here needing help from the Federal Government in the face of disaster. I have never turned my back on any State. And I could go down the list: Texas, $1.090 billion for Tropical Storm Allison--$452 million in 2001, including emergency funding in the fiscal year 2002 VA-HUD bill--and Hurricane Bret in 1999, and damages from severe storms, flooding, hail, and tornadoes. I have a list that I will not take the time--and I do not have the time--to read. I have a list of disasters that have occurred, and a list of responses by the Appropriations Committees of the Congress in helping the people who were suffering from those disasters. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed at the close of my remarks.

Mr. BYRD. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. BYRD. I yield 1 more minute.

Mr. BYRD. Now, Madam President, how much time do I have?

Mr. BYRD. It will be.

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely. May I say that the two distinguished Senators from New York have not once, have not twice, have not thrice, but many times talked with me about the needs, the immediate needs, of the people of New York. They have talked to me about the suffering that the people of New York have had visited upon them by this beastly attack. They have continued to implore me, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to help them, to help the State of New York. The Governor of New York came down to see me also. He sat at the table in my office on the floor below and pleaded with me to provide help and succor and comfort in the form of dollars for New York City.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, friends, Senators, Americans, lend me your ears. It was just 56 days ago on a day like this day, as clear as the noon day Sun and a cloudless sky, that tragedy struck. Until September 10 we thought of national defense in terms of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that make up our military. We sought to provide them with the best training and equipment that money could buy, and when duty calls, we expect them to leave behind their families and loved ones to go into harm's way to protect our country and our citizens from aggression. Our concept of national defense has now been radically altered as a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks. It is not just our military personnel in Afghanistan who are on the front lines, but all Americans here at home are on the front lines. This zone of conflict extends to where we live, where we work, and where we play. Judging by the horrendous loss of life in New York, our own cities are the battlefield of the 21st century. The President has said that ``we are fighting a two-front war . . . our enemy is fighting an army, not only overseas, but at home.'' Our domestic army against terrorism is made up of those who work to enforce our laws, those who work to secure our borders, those who manage the Public Health Service, and those who provide for the security of our Nation's airports and nuclear facilities. Just as we provide for the finest and most capable military, we must provide for the defense of our homeland because, as I say, here, too, is the front line. On September 14, the Congress passed a $40 billion emergency supplemental appropriations bill in response to the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. There was absolute bipartisanship. There was no aisle between the parties then. At the time, we thought we could split those funds between our military needs abroad and those needed to rebuild New York City and the Pentagon. However, since September 14, we have seen a biological attack unleashed on the east coast in the form of anthrax. The specter of small pox has reemerged for the first time in almost 30 years. The distinguished senior Senator from Alaska and I can remember very well those schooldays when we were vaccinated for smallpox at school. I remember the little two-room schoolhouse there in that ancient coal mining camp of Algonquin in Mercer County, southern West Virginia, in the heart of the coal fields. There it was that I received the needle. We have seen National Guard troops patrolling the Golden Gate Bridge. We have had threats made against our nuclear facilities. We have gained new information that Osama bin Laden loyalists have progressed further than originally thought in producing chemical and nuclear weapons, and those stories, those headlines appeared in the Washington press. The Administration has issued three vague warnings to the American people urging them to be on a heightened state of alert. We have learned so much more about our potential vulnerabilities here at home since September 14. We now know that these vulnerabilities must be addressed, and that additional security precautions must be taken. Of the $40 billion emergency appropriations bill passed on September 14, the President has committed $21 billion to our military and intelligence primarily for needs abroad. That leaves $19 billion for the President to fulfill his promise to provide $20 billion to rebuild New York City and the Pentagon and other areas which were the subject of the terrorist attacks. And the other area is homeland defense, of which he, himself, has identified $6 billion in needs. Clearly, within the confines of that $40 billion package, we cannot do it all. The reality is that budget deficits are on the horizon as far as the human eye and as far as our computers can see, and certainly as far as the end of the President's second term, if he should choose to run, if the electorate should choose to elect him, and if the Good Lord chooses to let him live. Under the guise of budgetary discipline, the administration has chosen an arbitrary number--independent of whether or not that amount can provide for our homeland defense needs--and the administration has decided to oppose or to postpone until next year any spending above that line regardless of the need or purpose. Osama bin Laden does not care one whit, not one snap of the finger, about our budget agreements. His loyalists are not concerned about whether we have a supplemental appropriations bill in the spring. They are plotting attacks right now, this very minute. Twenty-four hours a day they plot. They plot when you are sleeping. They plot when I am sleeping. They will not wait until next year, and if we do not make these small investments now to address our potential vulnerabilities, then we risk substantially larger losses in the future--not just financial and human casualties but also the loss of the American people's confidence in their Government, the American people's confidence in their President, the American people's confidence in their Congress. We cannot shortchange our homeland defense. We cannot postpone these investments. Our citizens have a right to know that the police, the fire and the hospital personnel in their communities have the equipment, training, and medicine to respond to a terrorist attack. I have, with the help of my staff and with the help of the witnesses who have appeared before the appropriations subcommittees, crafted a package that addresses our most immediate vulnerabilities at home. This package provides the President's full request for our military operations abroad. We do not cut one penny from defense, defense as understood in the usual sense. We do not cut one penny from the President's promise and our commitment to New York City. Not one penny do we cut. And we provide for homeland defense. That is as much defense as is the defense of our military people who are overseas. Americans have spilled blood in Afghanistan. Americans have spilled blood in Lower Manhattan, and within our own sight out of the windows Americans have spilled blood at the Pentagon. Is there any difference in the spilling of American blood whether it is overseas or at home, when the cause of that spilling of American blood and that blood itself is on the hands of terrorists? The major elements of my homeland defense package include bioterrorism prevention and response, which includes food safety. Our current public health system is ill-funded, fragmented, and unprepared to respond adequately to the threats posed by bioterrorism. The anthrax-laced letters sent through the mail afforded us just a glimpse of the terror, the fear, the concern, the apprehension, that could result from a more serious biological attack involving smallpox or Ebola. We know that rogue nations like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are developing biological and chemical weapons. We know that bin Laden loyalists have conducted research on chemical and biological weapons at 40 sites in Afghanistan. The Administration has proposed $1.6 billion for bioterrorism prevention, just barely enough to increase our supply of smallpox vaccine and other necessary pharmaceuticals alone. To fit into the President's budget request, the Health and Human Services Department even cut back on its repeatedly stated goal of purchasing 300 million small pox vaccine doses, choosing to rely instead on diluted versions of older vaccine doses left over from the 1970s. The Administration's chief public health expert, the director of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Jeffrey Koplan, indicated that the Administration's proposal is ``too little, too late.'' Moreover, Dr. Koplan estimates that it will take at least $1 billion to bring state and local public health agencies up to speed to be able to recognize and respond to an incident of bioterrorism. Yet, the Administration has proposed a paltry $115 million to increase State and local health capacity. Our proposal includes over $1.3 billion for expanding State and local health capacity, twelve times the President's request. State and local health departments are considered the weakest link in the Nation's defense against bioterrorism, and experts say they must take a range of steps to improve readiness, including increasing their laboratory capacity and hiring more epidemiologists to track disease. The Secretary of HHS, Tommy Thompson, when he appeared before our appropriations subcommittee to speak about protecting the American people from an outbreak of smallpox, said every State should have at least one epidemiologist. Experts say they must take a range of steps to improve readiness, increasing their laboratory capacity and hiring more epidemiologists to track disease. Who will be the first to respond to a biological attack, the State and local health officials down in Beckley, WV, the local law enforcement officers at Sophia, population 1,182? These are the people who will be first. The Feds may come within 6 hours, 8 hours, or 10 hours, but those who will respond first are those law enforcement and health officials, fire department people who are there on the spot. They will be the first to die, and they will be the first to act to prevent others from dying. Fewer than half of these health departments have access to the modern fax machines capable of expeditiously alerting hospitals of a bioterror threat. Our local health care providers are more likely to receive critical health advisories from CNN than they are from other health care officials. My homeland security package would provide an additional $3.9 billion to not only expand the development of the Federal pharmaceutical stockpile and our supply of the smallpox vaccine, but also to expand state and local health care capacity. In contrast to the administration's funding proposal, this package prioritizes funding to ``first responders'' at the state and local level. The bulk of the funding is directed toward improving our public health departments, beefing up local lab capacity, and expanding the Health Alert Network. Also, included in my homeland security package is $575 million that would be directed to the Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Agriculture, to help prevent and respond to the malicious introduction of a highly contagious disease into our food supply. Aside from the obvious health threat, agro-terrorism would severely disrupt the economy and public confidence in the food supply. We have to be conscious of the possibility that terrorists will act against our crops, against the Nation's livestock and threaten the lives of people through the food they eat. We need only look to the recent outbreak of mad cow disease in Japan to see the chaos and economic devastation that would follow an agro- terrorist attack. I doubt many Americans would find comfort in the fact that the FDA only has the resources to inspect 0.7 percent of all imported food. Not 1 percent, only 0.7 of 1 percent. The FDA only has the resources to inspect 0.7 percent of all imported food. When it comes to the health and safety of the American people, we cannot afford to cut corners. We cannot afford to gamble. We cannot afford to tempt fate. We must not deal with bioterrorism on the cheap.

Mr. BYRD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Scriptures say that a word fitly spoken is like apples of gold and pictures of silver. The words of the distinguished Senator from Maryland are fitly spoken. The time is now. The danger is here. It is now. Now, several subcommittees under the Appropriations Committee have had hearings, and I have been able to attend some of those hearings. We have heard eloquent witnesses appear before those subcommittees and testify to the need of appropriations now, aside from the fact that it is at the State and local levels where the need exists now. I saw in the paper, I believe in the last week, a headline that the State of Virginia was suffering a $1 billion shortfall in State revenue. The State of Virginia is not alone in that respect. Most States in this country are suffering shortfalls in their budgets. They need help. They need money now. We cannot wait, as the distinguished Senator from Maryland has said. In putting this package together, we have tried to consider those items which are purely for homeland defense. On the question of the need of States and cities for Federal aid, 39 States--get this, 39 States--today, right now, nearly 4 out of 5 States, are in a recession or near a recession. Since March, the number of States in recession has nearly doubled to 20 States from 11 States with the terrorist attacks of September 11 helping to push some over the brink. I will refer to this statement of facts again later. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland. He is right on point. My homeland security package also contains $1 billion for Federal, State, and local law enforcement. The attacks of September 11 dramatically, and tragically demonstrated that our country's law enforcement agencies need greater support to counter the terrorist violence that has reached our shores. They need this support and, as we have already indicated, the States cannot provide it. The money is not there. They are already running into deficit, so they are looking to the Federal Government to help. Of the $1 billion included in this package, $225 million would be used to improve communication and coordination between the FBI and the 43 Federal agencies involved in counterterrorism activities here at home. Former drug czar Barry McCaffrey testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in October that the FBI's computers are woefully inadequate--those were his words, the FBI's computers are ``woefully inadequate''--and that the computers in the homes of most Americans are more advanced than those used by FBI agents in the field. Think of that. He also stated that a current FBI's computer upgrades effort is hampered by budgetary constraints. This $225 million that is included in this red section of the pie chart would jump-start those upgrades and move the Bureau's technology into the 21st century. I see the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, on the floor. He is listening raptly. He has indicated that he wishes to make a point. I yield for that purpose.

Mr. BYRD. There is $225 million in this package to jump-start the effort to upgrade those computers. They are the instruments of communication between and among the FBI and the other agencies. It is a dire need, and it should be met now, not next spring.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.