Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I am aware of it.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. There is no question about it. Time after time, as the Senator says, they have turned down amendments of this Senate to enhance the security of our people, our facilities, our properties. Time after time after time. Our pleas have fallen upon deaf ears. And in the nearly 3 years since the tragic events of 9/11, I myself have pressed the Senate to provide additional resources for homeland security. The administration, the President, including the great Vice President we have, consistently opposed these efforts. The President went so far as to threaten to veto bills if they included what the administration characterized as ``wasteful spending.'' There are many examples--let me give a few--of funding contained in these amendments that certainly would have helped to make America safer. In November of 2001, Senate Democrats supported my amendment to include $15 billion for homeland security in an economic stimulus package, including $4 billion for bioterrorism and food safety; $4.6 billion for State and local law enforcement and fire training and equipment and Federal computer improvements; $3.3 billion for transportation security, including airport and port security; $1.1 billion for border security; $2.0 billion for security at nuclear power, water, and other critical infrastructure facilities, and for mail screening. The White House opposed the effort, warning of ``permanent spending on other projects that have nothing to do with stimulus and that will only expand the size of government.'' I could go on with example after example. But I shall simply ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record a litany of these projects.

Mr. BYRD. The President has tried to convince the American people that they are safer because he created a new Department of Homeland Security. Well, reorganizing the deck chairs of our bureaucracy does not make us safer. It takes money. Money. I have offered this amendment in the hopes the Senate will accept it and that we might take it to conference. This is an opportunity to do what we should do in order to save our people and their homes. I thank my distinguished friend from Nevada for his contribution to this debate. I thank my friend from Mississippi, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on which I serve, the subcommittee making appropriations for homeland security. I thank that Senator. He does the best he can do and has done the best he can do, but he is limited in what he can do. I thank him for his cooperation, for his manner of holding the hearings. He has always been very fair. I thank him. I thank other members of the subcommittee. But we need to do more. My amendment is an opportunity for the Senate to do more. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I did not hear the point of order as it was being made, but I understand it has been made. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays. But I also ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that there may be a few minutes for debate of the point of order and/or the motion to waive.

Mr. BYRD. How much time do we have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. Very well. Mr. President, I commend the chairman for the work he has done. Nothing I have said is in any way any criticism of his work. I commend him for producing a balanced bill. Given the constraints under which we are being forced to operate, he has done his best. I have no criticism of him whatsoever, but I would argue that $2 billion is not that large for the very short list of programs in this amendment that address vulnerabilities that are well known. Indeed, most of these programs have been authorized by the Congress and the President and this amendment tries to provide the authorized funding. Regarding the Deepwater Program, the Coast Guard authorization bill Public Law 108-293 authorizes $1.1 billion for the Coast Guard's Deepwater Acquisition Program. My amendment provides an additional $324 million to meet the authorization level for this critical activity. It was the USA PATRIOT Act, Public Law 107-56, which authorized a tripling of the number of border patrol agents and legacy immigration and Customs agents on the northern border. That law was passed nearly 3 years ago and this administration has failed to provide the funds to meet the authorization. My amendment adds $50 million so we can get nearly one-third of the way toward meeting the requirements of the law. The Maritime Transportation Security Act, Public Law 107-295, created the Port Security Grant Program. It called upon the Coast Guard to provide estimates of the costs for that program. The Coast Guard has estimated that $1.125 billion will be needed in the first year and $5.4 billion will be needed over the next 10 years for the ports to comply with the Federal regulations mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act which was signed into law by President Bush with great fanfare in November 2002. Despite the President's paucity of funding requests to implement the law, the Congress has stepped up to the plate and has appropriated a total of $493 million towards these grants. The Senate version of the budget resolution assumed that $275 million will be appropriated for port security grants in fiscal year 2005. The bill before us today provides $150 million. By adopting this amendment, the Congress still will have provided over 4 years only $768 million of the Coast Guard's first-year cost estimate of $1.125 billion for port security grants, but the additional $125 million in this amendment will meet the assumption for port security grants made in the Senate budget resolution. On May 6, 2004, the Senate Banking Committee, on a bipartisan basis, reported S. 2453 which authorizes $5.2 billion over the period of fiscal year 2005-2007 for transit security activities under its jurisdiction. On May 21, 2004, the Senate Commerce Committee, also on a bipartisan basis, reported S. 2273 which authorizes more than $1 billion for rail security activities under its jurisdiction over the period of fiscal year 2005-2009. My amendment provides $350 million in security grants to rail and transit systems. Combined with the funds provided in the committee-reported bill, we still fall more than halfway short in meeting the requirements of these bills. The authorization bills and the laws written and passed by this Congress by overwhelming margins and signed into law by the President clearly demonstrate a far greater funding need than that contained in my amendment. My amendment, which would implement several 9/11 Commission recommendations, is but a small step in meeting the homeland security requirements authorized already by the Congress. The President has said he would do whatever it takes. However, his budget takes a hike when it comes to actually funding homeland security. I note that, and I agree with Chairman Cochran, we must operate within limits on spending, but the limits must be set at a level that allows the Congress to fund homeland security programs that address clear dangers. We are debating an amendment that provides $2 billion for securing our homeland. In the last 3 years, the President has signed three tax cuts. These tax cuts increased our Federal deficit for fiscal year 2005 by $232 billion. Where were the limits? Where were the limits on the tax cuts? Where are those voices who say we are overdoing it in this amendment? Where were they when it came to the tax cuts? Did we overdo the tax cuts? The President increased our deficits for fiscal year 2005 by $232 billion in tax cuts, but we cannot afford $2 billion today for securing our rail systems, for securing our chemical plants, or making sure a terrorist does not blow another plane out of the sky. In summary, in the nearly 3 years since the tragic events of 9/11, I have pressed the Senate to provide additional resources for homeland security and the President consistently opposed those efforts. He went so far as to threaten to veto bills if they included what the administration characterized as wasteful spending. Let me give a few examples of funding contained in those amendments that certainly would have helped make America safer. In November of 2001, Senate Democrats supported my amendment to include $15 billion for homeland security in an economic stimulus package, including $4 billion for bioterrorism and food safety, $4.6 billion for State and local law enforcement and fire training and equipment and Federal computer improvements, $3.3 billion for transportation security, including airport and port security, $1.1 billion for border security, $2.0 billion for security at nuclear power, water, and other critical infrastructure facilities, and for mail screening. The White House opposed the effort, warning of ``permanent spending on other projects that have nothing to do with stimulus and that will only expand the size of Government.'' On November 28, 2001, Office of Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge wrote to me and said, ``. . . no additional resources to protect the homeland beyond what the President has already requested are needed at this time.'' Senate Republicans, under pressure from the White House, objected to the ``emergency designation'' for the homeland security funding and voted to block the funding. On December 4, 2001, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported, by a vote of 29-0, the fiscal year 2002 Defense appropriations bill. This bill included $13.1 billion for homeland security programs, $8.7 billion above the President's request. In a meeting with congressional leaders, President Bush threatened to veto the Defense appropriations bill that contained the additional homeland security funding. On December 6, 2001, Senate Republicans, voted against the ``emergency designation'' for the homeland security funding. As a result, homeland security funding was reduced by $4.6 billion, from $13.1 billion to $8.5 billion. Under further pressure from the White House, conferees further reduced homeland defense funding from $8.5 billion to $8.3 billion, a level that was still $3.9 billion above the President's request. In reducing the funding from $13.1 billion to $8.3 billion, funding was reduced for bioterrorism and food safety, border security, airport security, port security, nuclear facility security, and postal security. In June of 2002, by a bipartisan vote of 71-22, the Senate passed a supplemental appropriations bill that included $8.3 billion for homeland security. The funding was allocated based on a series of five bipartisan hearings held by the Senate Appropriations Committee when the committee heard testimony from Governors, mayors, police, fire fighters, emergency medical and other first responders, port security specialists and other experts in the field of counterterrorism, seven cabinet officers and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. On June 17, 2002, the President's senior advisors recommended a veto of the Senate version of the supplemental bill because it included what they asserted was excessive homeland security spending. Under pressure from the White House, the conferees agreed to reduce homeland defense funding from $8.3 billion to $6.7 billion. Funding was reduced for food safety, for cyber security, for solving the first responder radio interoperability problem, for nuclear security, for increased lab capacity to determine whether biological or chemical weapons have been used in a potential attack, for airport security, port security, and water security. Then, in August of 2002, the President refused to spend $2.5 billion that Congress had approved for homeland security. The President chose not to make the emergency designation, asserting that the contingency emergency fund contained wasteful spending. In making that decision, the President blocked funding for homeland defense programs that would have specifically addressed known shortcomings including: firefighting grants; security improvements at our nuclear plants and labs; grants to make police and fire communications equipment interoperable in response to weaknesses identified on September 11; port security grants; airport security funding, including funds for more Federal air marshals; Coast Guard funding; law enforcement resources for State and local governments for police equipment and training; FBI funding for counter terrorism and information technology enhancements; urban search and rescue teams; cyber security improvements to protect our economy; food and water security, including funds for addressing the threat of mad cow disease; border security; dam and reservoir security; and Customs Service funds to increase the number and quality of the inspections of the six million cargo containers that come into this country each year. President Bush announced at his economic forum in Texas that he was rejecting the $2.5 billion bipartisan homeland security funding package. President Bush said, ``I made my opposition clear. We were pretty plain-spoken. . . I understand Congress's position, and today, they're going to learn mine. We'll spend none of it.'' In connection with the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations legislation, the White House said, ``the administration strongly opposes amendments to add new extraneous spending to the package.'' On January 16, 2003, Senate Republicans fell in line behind the President and voted 45-51 to defeat an amendment that I offered to add $5 billion for homeland security activities for port security, airport security, border security, nuclear security, and for implementing the President's smallpox vaccine plan. My amendment included $300 million for mass transit security. Perhaps if that amendment had been adopted, we would be better prepared today to prevent a terrorist attack on our subways, buses and trains. On January 29, 2003, the President, in his State of the Union message to the Congress said, ``Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people.'' Three months later, on April 2 and 3, 2003, the White House opposed all five amendments that I prepared for consideration on the fiscal year 2003 emergency Iraq/Afghanistan war supplemental to increase funding for homeland security programs. In total, the amendments would have provided $9 billion, $4.8 billion more than the President requested. All of the amendments were defeated on virtual party-line votes. Funding was rejected for radiation and portal monitors, for grants to public transit agencies for security of transit facilities against chemical, biological, and other terrorist threats, for grants to improve communications within and among first responders, for funds for the Coast Guard to implement the Automated Identification System and other tracking systems to actively track and monitor vessels operating in United States waters, for port security, and for the FBI. Then, in July of 2003, I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security appropriations bill to add $1.75 billion for homeland security programs. The amendment was defeated 43-50. The amendment included funds to implement several authorization laws that the President had signed shortly after 9/11, but then failed to either adequately fund or fund at all, including the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, and the USA PATRIOT Act. Once again, funding was rejected for mass-transit security, for securing the northern border, for air-cargo security, for port security and for first responders. In the September 2003 conference on the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security appropriations bill, I tried again to add $1.25 billion to the bill, and the effort was defeated on party-line vote of the conferees of 8-9. The amendment would have added $375 million for port security grants, $400 million for aviation security, $66 million for implementation of port security enhancements required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act, $34 million for the Coast Guard Deepwater Program, $125 million for 1,300 additional Customs inspectors at the borders, $200 million for first responder grants, and $50 million to enhance security at chemical facilities. I urge that the Senate waive the point of order.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the Senate now has before it the fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security appropriations bill. I commend subcommittee Chairman Cochran and I commend him highly. I commend his staff for their work on this important legislation. We had an excellent series of hearings this year that I believe helped the subcommittee to produce a bill that contains significant improvements to the President's request. I also commend the thousands of men and women who are on the front lines of homeland security. We need to give these men and women the tools they need to do their jobs in order to support their strong commitment to serve the Nation every hour of every day of every week of every month. On August 1, 2004, Secretary Tom Ridge increased the threat level for New York, New Jersey, and our Nation's Capital, to Code Orange, a high risk of terrorist attacks. This is the sixth time since September 11, 2001, that the threat level has been increased to Code Orange. On July 14, Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin said, ``In the Summer of 2001, we had ample warning of attack, but we didn't know anything about specificity: timing, targets, and so forth. But we did have conviction that something big was coming at us. We have that same conviction now.'' On July 8, Secretary Tom Ridge and FBI Director Robert Mueller announced that al-Qaida cells are operating in the United States and that multiple simultaneous attacks are possible before the November elections. In late May, the Attorney General announced that he had credible intelligence from multiple sources that al-Qaida plans to hit the United States hard in the next few months. In the weeks following the Madrid railway bombings, the Washington Post reported that the President informed the Republican congressional leadership that he was all but certain that terrorists would attempt a major attack on the United States before the November elections. It is past time that we begin debating this legislation as we approach the 3 year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and as Congress reviews the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The Commission concluded that the terrorists who are intent on doing us harm are so cunning and agile, and sufficiently knowledgeable about this country that they would schedule their attacks when Congress was in session. These reports also indicate that on September 11, 2001, our Government agencies were not prepared to deter or respond to such attacks. I believe that we are still not prepared. The bill before the Senate provides $33.1 billion, a level that is $896 million above the President's request. Regrettably, the allocation that is available for homeland security programs is inadequate. This is not a criticism of Chairman Cochran, nor is it a criticism of full committee Chairman Ted Stevens. The fact is that limits placed on homeland security funding by the Bush White House constrain our ability to address known threats to the safety of the American people. In response to the danger of terror attacks so often invoked by the President, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the FBI Director, it is hard to believe that the President would not request supplemental appropriations for securing our mass transit systems, for screening airline passengers for explosives, for inspecting more containers coming into our ports, for increasing inspections of air cargo, or for increasing the number of Federal air marshals. When the threat level was elevated to Code Orange, why did the President not seek a supplemental? Why does he not amend his fiscal year 2005 budget request to increase his anemic 2-percent proposed increase for the Department of Homeland Security? Why in Heaven's name? Why, indeed, does the Department seem satisfied with a go-slow, business-as-usual approach to homeland security? The Department issued advice to mass transit systems for improving security, but provided no funding to increase law enforcement presence, or to deploy canine teams. Despite a 6-percent increase in airline flights this year, the Department has allowed the number of Federal air marshals to shrink precipitously--by 9 percent--and the President's budget would result in even deeper reductions next year. Despite concerns about the safety of our borders, the Department, in March, imposed a hiring freeze on Customs officers and immigration inspectors. What could possibly drive such decisions? Millions of dollars that Congress approved for port security, bus security, and hazardous materials grants 11 months ago have not been awarded. Why? Millions of dollars that Congress approved in February of 2003, 18 months ago, for the purchase of additional emergency equipment for the 28 Urban Search and Rescue teams have not been spent. Why? Having this money sit in Washington, DC, does not make American citizens any safer. As a result of the President's decision not to seek supplemental appropriations, the Transportation Security Administration was forced to cut funding for training passenger and baggage screeners and for purchasing equipment for airport checkpoints by $38 million. I am one Senator who believes that this administration is playing with fire. It has been 2\1/2\ years since Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, tried to blow up an aircraft in flight over the ocean with explosives that he carried onto the aircraft. Just 2 weeks ago, two Russian planes were simultaneously blown out of the sky. Preliminary investigations indicate that the planes were destroyed by explosives carried onto the planes by passengers. The 9/11 Commission concluded that we must give priority attention to screening passengers for explosives. Are we any closer to deploying a national system that could check passengers for explosives? The answer is no. It has been over 2\1/2\ years since the Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act and set a goal of tripling the border patrol and customs officers on the northern border. Have we met the goal? Again, no. We are 1,428 officers short of the goal. It has been nearly 3 years since 9/11, when police and firemen in the World Trade Center could not talk to each other on their radios. As the 9/11 Commission concluded, many first responders failed to get the order to evacuate the towers, causing hundreds of them to perish. Are we any closer to providing police and firemen across the nation with interoperable communications equipment? Sadly, the answer is no. The EPA has estimated that there are 100 chemical plants in this country, each of which, if attacked, could harm over 1 million people. In February of 2003, the National Infrastructure Protection Center, which is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, issued a threat warning that al-Qaida may attempt to launch conventional attacks on nuclear or chemical plants. A year and a half later, has the Department actually hardened the security of the chemical plants? You guessed it, no. I simply do not understand why this administration thinks that homeland security is not important enough to fund. The President campaigns on being the best candidate to protect this Nation, yet each and every budget that he sends to Capitol Hill shortchanges the safety and security of whom? You guessed it, the American people. Similarly, I am very concerned that we are about to make the same mistakes with our Nation's intelligence services. The 9/11 Commission offered a large number of proposals to change our intelligence system, each of which needs to be carefully evaluated. Some may work and some may not, but adopting them all lock, stock, and barrel without carefully scrutinizing each proposal simply to beat the political clock is a surefire recipe for disaster. We should not create sheer chaos and bureaucratic turf battles within the very structure that is trying to ferret out another attack before it happens. For instance, last month, the President signed three Executive Orders to begin implementing the 9/11 Commission reforms. But the Bush administration has not sent a single budget amendment to the Capitol to pay for those changes. Where is the money to operate the new National Counterterrorism Center that the President created by Executive Order? And if there is no new money, isn't the President just reshuffling the deck chairs? Is this the same old story being played out? This is what we have seen with homeland security. There is great fanfare when the President signs a homeland security authorization bill. But then the appropriations bills and amendments are rejected by the Bush White House as ``extraneous spending''--the very amendments that would keep the promise of the administration's fanfare. When are we going to break this cycle of false promises to the people of this Nation? Our intelligence services have problems that must be addressed. We have far too few people on the ground in key places on the globe. We have terribly inadequate intelligence technologies. We do not have sufficient backup facilities for our one-of-a-kind intelligence assets. The FBI Director has told every person who would listen about the critical vulnerabilities that he must address to meet today's threats. Yet, instead of taking on these tasks which we know must be done, this government seems all too eager to satisfy itself with shifting boxes and creating bureaucracies. In the legislation before the Senate today, we try to break that cycle. The $896 million increase that is in the Senate bill will help to address some of the gaps in the President's homeland security budget. The bill includes $150 million for mass transit security, none of which was requested by the President. Instead of cutting port security by 62 percent, as proposed by the President, we are providing at least a modest increase over last year for port security. We are providing $98 million more than the President requested for replacing the Coast Guard ships and planes that are deteriorating at a dangerous pace. Funds are included to stop the loss of Federal air marshals. Additional funding is also provided for air cargo security and explosives-detection equipment and for additional radiation detectors that can be deployed at our ports. We continue to fund effective programs that the President wanted to cut or reorganize, such as the fire grants program and the All Hazards Emergency Management Performance Grants program. In addition, the bill contains an important protection for the privacy rights of Americans. I thank Chairman Cochran for his support of my amendment in subcommittee concerning CAPPS II, the Department's proposed new airline passenger profiling system. By restating the language that was in the 2004 act, this bill allows testing of the project to move forward, but ensures that the system will not be deployed until GAO confirms that privacy rights will be protected, that an appeals process is in place, that the data in the system is accurate, and that the data is protected from unauthorized use. On July 15, Secretary Ridge announced that CAPPS II, in its current form, would not be deployed. I am encouraged that he finally got the message that the Congress has been sending him for over a year about balancing our need for protection with our rights to privacy. On August 26, the Department announced a replacement program called Secure Flight, but details are not yet available. I look forward to hearing the details of the plan so that we can determine whether the privacy rights of our citizens are protected. With the limited funds that were made available to the subcommittee under our allocation, Chairman Cochran has produced a good bill. And I commend him for it. However, this Nation faces a turning point, as we are challenged, once again, by the threat of attack on our shores. We know that terrorists live among us. Yet we do not know where they will strike, we do not know when they will strike. We do not know. What we have are warnings from the Attorney General, from the FBI Director, and even from the President that al-Qaida is planning an attack here within our shores. Are we prepared to prevent such an attack? Are we prepared to respond to such an attack? Look at the funding levels and decide. The bill that is before the Senate contains an increase of about 5 percent above the fiscal year 2004 level. The President is certain that America is going to be attacked again soon, yet the Senate is debating a bill that provides for a 5-percent increase. If an attack occurs, it will be on the head of this White House to explain why they pinched pennies with homeland security. Congress has a responsibility to protect the Nation. So does the President. The country's serious vulnerabilities demand that we invest dollars where they are most needed. That is why I intend to offer an amendment to this bill to target increased funding to those programs that have the most impact on well- documented vulnerabilities, such as rail security, port security, chemical security, fire and other first-responder programs, and border protection. Mr. President, more than 95 percent of the Nation's overseas cargo moves through our ports. The U.S. Coast Guard estimates that a one- month closure of a major U.S. port would cost our national economy $60 billion. We inspect only 9 percent of the cargo containers that come into our seaports. The 9/11 Commission concluded that we must do better, and I agree. In order to help secure those ports, the Coast Guard estimates that $1.1 billion is required to implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act in the first year, and $5.4 billion over 10 years. Yet the President requested only $46 million for port security grants, and this bill only provides $150 million. We need to do more. On March 11 of this year, terrorists attacked commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, killing nearly 200 innocent passengers. The President has not requested a dime for mass transit security. We should be investing in additional guards, better training, additional canine teams and better surveillance. Chairman Cochran has initiated a $150 million program for mass transit security, but the Senate Banking Committee has reported a bill authorizing over $3.5 billion for fiscal year 2005 for mass transit security and the Senate Commerce Committee has reported a bill authorizing $1.2 billion for rail and Amtrak security. Americans use public transportation over 32 million times per workday. We need to do more. The Hart-Rudman report on the terrorist threat in this country recommended a $98 billion investment in equipping and training for our first responders over the next 5 years. Yet, this bill cuts first- responder funding below the levels enacted last year. The committee report calls on the Department to finally issue Federal guidelines to assist State and local governments in making wise purchases with first responder funding, but guidelines are not a substitute for money. The bill would reduce first-responder funding by $778 million from the fiscal year 2004 level, including cuts in the fire grant program. That is not acceptable. This is a good bill but it simply does not do enough. My amendment, which I shall offer, will not simply throw money at homeland security. It will address specific, known vulnerabilities. It will fund a number of the security weaknesses identified by the 9/11 Commission. Last week, the President said: This election will also determine how America responds to the continuing danger of terrorism--and you know where I stand. Three days after September 11, I stood where Americans died in the ruins of the Twin Towers. Workers in hard hats were shouting to me, ``Whatever it takes.'' A fellow grabbed me by the arm and he said, ``Do not let me down.'' Since that day I wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. I will never relent in defending America, whatever it takes. Whatever it takes? Well, Mr. President, it takes more than empty promises to protect this country from attack. If President Bush meant what he said last week, he would not accept a bill that cuts funds for first responders, that leaves first responders unable to communicate, that leaves airline passengers worrying about whether a fellow passenger has the means whereby to destroy the plane, whether a passenger has brought explosives on board, or that fails to adequately invest in securing our ports, our chemical facilities, and our trains. Again, I commend Chairman Cochran for his work on this important legislation. He conducted hearings. He conducted fair hearings. I encourage Members to bring their amendments to the floor so that they can be considered and so that we can bring this bill to final passage and go to conference. We need to get a good freestanding bill to the President's desk. We have waited far, far too long. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to support this bill.

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

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may require from my allotted time. Yesterday, the General Accounting Office released a shocking report about the state of funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Simply put, our troops are running out of money. But the White House denies that there is a problem. The findings in the General Accounting Office report are alarming. The Army is overspending its fiscal year 2004 operations in maintenance funds to the tune of $10.2 billion. The Air Force urgently needs another $1.4 billion this fiscal year, and the Marines are short by $500 million. Our military is cutting back on training at the same time that retired service members are being pressed back into uniform to be sent overseas. These budget problems are being compounded by the fact that the White House planned on having only 99,000 troops in Iraq by this point instead of the 140,000 troops we will have there for the foreseeable future. This is the most astounding evidence to date that the administration has fundamentally mismanaged the financing for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President did not bother to put a single dime, not one thin dime, in his February budget request for these wars. He insisted that more funding would not be needed until January 2005. Even when the administration flip-flopped and came to Congress on May 13, 2004, to ask for a $25 billion emergency reserve fund, top administration officials denied that there was an urgent need for more funds to support our troops in the field. Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz described the $25 billion which is contained in the conference report of the Defense appropriations bill now before the Senate as an insurance plan. That is the way Mr. Wolfowitz described it. Secretary Wolfowitz stated in his testimony to the Armed Services Committee that our troops would not run out of funds until February or March 2005. I didn't buy that line. The administration has fallen down on the job in budgeting for these wars, and his budget projections simply are not to be trusted. I say ``these wars'' because we are fighting two wars, one war in Afghanistan, which is the result of the al-Qaida attack upon the United States on September 11, 2001. That was an attack upon the United States by those individuals who had hijacked planes and flown them into the World Trade Towers, into the Pentagon, and into the field in Pennsylvania. That was one war. I supported Mr. Bush on that war. I support that war today. The second war is the Bush war, the war that is of Mr. Bush and his ring of people around him in the White House. That is the Bush war. That was an attack upon a sovereign nation which had not provoked us, which had not attacked us. That was an attack on a nation in support of the Bush doctrine of preemption. I did not support that war then, and I do not support it today. I did not buy that line. The administration has fallen down on the job of budgeting for these wars, and its budget projections simply are not to be trusted. It should have been clear to anyone who has picked up a newspaper in the last 6 months that our troops were beginning to run low on funds, but the administration sent witnesses bearing only rosy scenarios. To add insult to injury, the White House asked for a $25 billion blank check on the heels of Bob Woodward's revelations in his book, ``Plan of Attack,'' about the Pentagon hiding from Congress $700 million in spending to prepare for war in Iraq. This was an astounding request. Thankfully, Congress has seen through the administration's double dealing on funding our troops. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Ted Stevens, and his colleague, the ranking member of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Senator Daniel Inouye, for working to pierce the fog of rhetoric to reshape this $25 billion reserve fund to best help our troops while protecting the constitutional prerogatives of Congress. Instead of being a $25 billion blank check, $23 billion of these funds--that is, 92 percent--is made available for regular appropriations accounts. This means that Congress will be better able to track how these additional funds are used. In addition, the $25 billion in funding will be available for our troops as soon as this bill is signed into law. They will not have to wait until October 1 to purchase the critical equipment our troops need to survive in the combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, I thank Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for working with me to promote fiscal responsibility and accountability for how these funds are to be used. Despite the improvements made to the administration's request for funding for the war, I continue to have serious concerns about the direction of the so-called peacetime defense budget; that is, the huge amount of funds not related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This bill contains $391.2 billion for the Pentagon, not including $25 billion for the cost of the wars. That is a massive increase over the $287.1 billion appropriated for the Pentagon as recently as fiscal year 2001. The administration claims this explosion in defense spending is necessary to transform our military into a faster, lighter, and stronger fighting force. But today's Los Angeles Times states that the Army is delaying by 2 years the launch of its first modernized unit that is supposed to be the centerpiece of this defense transformation effort. In this age of sky-high deficits, could it be that we are getting less bang for more bucks? How else can the administration explain a stalled transformation effort when defense spending has risen 36 percent in 4 years? If this rate of growth continues, this country will soon be spending half a trillion per year on the defense establishment, with no assurance that those funds are being well spent. The Pentagon's accounting systems are a mess, an absolute mess. Despite Secretary Rumsfeld's promise to me at his confirmation hearing in January 2001 to get this problem fixed, the General Accounting Office has recently issued serious warnings that his accounting reform effort is headed down the wrong track. In fact, this Defense appropriations bill cuts funds from this accounting reform effort precisely because the Defense Department's program to fix its accounting systems is underperforming. Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars that were supposed to have been put to use in establishing a robust system of financial accountability remain unspent. This Congress made the wise decision not to throw more money at a problem that is not being fixed. When Secretary Rumsfeld gets his accounting reform program back on its feet, I will be the first Senator in line to support all necessary funds for that purpose. Senators should also realize this Defense appropriations bill brings back from conference something that was never included in the Senate- passed bill and something that was never included in the House-passed bill. It includes a deeming resolution to increase the annual discretionary spending limit to $821.9 billion for the fiscal year 2005. The failure of this Congress to pass its annual budget has led to this move to include a deeming resolution in the Defense appropriations bill, signaling the complete breakdown in this year's budget process. Setting aside the fact that this provision violates rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, Senators should know that this deeming resolution authorizes $11 billion less than what the Congressional Budget Office says is necessary to maintain current services, adjusted for inflation. That $11 billion is needed to maintain services to our veterans, fund health care and education programs for our seniors and our youth, and maintain our mass transit and highway programs. In a time of war, each dollar devoted to our military must be put to full use. No matter how many additional hundreds of billions Congress may approve for the Pentagon, defense spending without accountability ultimately hurts our troops in the field. Each dollar that is spent on wasteful contracts, each dollar that is lost in an accounting maze, is one less dollar for our troops to buy ammunition, to buy fuel, to buy body armor. There must also be a budget so Congress can know the spending plan for our troops on the battlefield will be supported in the coming months and years. The administration would do well to listen--just to listen; get off its high horse, swallow its false pride, and listen--to this commonsense message. Stop the budget gamesmanship that only endangers the lives of our fighting men and women. Enough of the political posturing that denies that our military in the field may have urgent needs. The President of the United States must take responsibility for the fiscal mess that he has created. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield, I will respond. I do intend to. I would hope that the cloakroom would find out if any Senators on my side want any time on this bill.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I speak, in part, on another matter, but basically with reference to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. I would hope to title my remarks at this point ``Homeland Insecurity.'' In a mere matter of days, we will officially kick off the 2004 Presidential election season, with the convening of the Democratic convention in Boston. The political activities and festivities in Boston will also mark the beginning of a tense interlude between the conventions and the November elections, during which the Nation has been told to brace for the possibility of a large-scale terrorist attack on the United States. Earlier this month, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and FBI Director Robert Mueller went on national television to warn the American people that credible evidence pointed to plans by al-Qaida to launch a large-scale attack on the United States before the November elections in an effort to disrupt our democratic process. Yet in the weeks since our Nation's top Homeland Security officials issued that blunt and alarming warning, the administration appears to have buried its head in the sand, carrying on with business as usual, seemingly oblivious to the gathering danger predicted by its own experts. This morning the Washington Times newspaper published on its front page a chilling account of shadowy groups of Middle Eastern men carrying out surveillance at airports, probing security measures, conducting what appear to be dry runs on our aircraft. The reports are anecdotal, but regardless of whether the article turns out to be accurate or merely an example of scare-mongering, it raises serious questions and underscores serious flaws in the administration's preparedness to respond to another terrorist attack on the United States. Following the tragic events of September 11, protecting the Nation's commercial aircraft became the top antiterrorism priority of the Federal Government in this country. The administration established a firm goal for the number of Federal air marshals so that a high percentage of critical flights could be protected. The exact number of air marshals is classified. However, it is no secret that the Federal Air Marshals Program has never reached the staffing level deemed necessary to protect the American people in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Worse, as commercial air travel rebounds to its highest level since the September 11 attacks, the number of Federal air marshals is actually declining, falling 9 percent below the meager staffing level that the program was initially able to achieve and far further below the administration's stated goal. As air marshals leave the program, budget constraints prohibit the hiring of replacements. The number of air marshals continues to dwindle, and the number of critical flights they are able to cover remains on a steady downward spiral. That is enough to make your hair stand on end. At a time when Americans have been told, in the starkest terms possible, that al-Qaida is moving forward with plans to attack our homeland, the administration continues to twiddle its thumbs and allow our homeland defenses, including protection of commercial aircraft, to erode. While the Bush administration claims progress in the war on terror and asserts that it is making the Nation safer, the facts belie the rhetoric. The assertions are hollow. The administration has consistently put homeland security on the back burner. At the prodding of Congress, the administration grudgingly created the Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. Senator Stevens and I wrote language into appropriation bills providing that the head of Homeland Security would require confirmation. No, the administration didn't want to send Mr. Ridge up before the Appropriations Committee until Senator Stevens and I joined in writing that language. Since the creation of this Department, the administration has failed to provide the Department with the resources needed to make Americans safer. The Senate, I am sorry to say, is somewhat complicit in the administration's negligence. The Senate has danced right along to the White House tune. As Brutus said, in scolding Cicero for attempting to toady up to Antony: Our ancestors would have scorned even a gentle master. Although the Senate Appropriations Committee passed the Homeland Security bill more than a month ago, it has been languishing--now get this. Let me say that again. Hear me. Although the Senate Appropriations Committee passed the Homeland Security appropriations bill more than a month ago, that bill has been languishing on the shelf since then and has yet to see the light of day on the Senate floor. That is the bill making appropriations for homeland security. That is the bill for your protection, may I say to the people who are watching this Senate through those electronic lenses. It is your protection, your security, your children's protection, your property, your community. And yet that bill has been languishing, where? On the shelf since then and has yet to see the light of day on this Senate floor. For some reason which I cannot divine, this do-nothing Senate--hear me--for some reason which I cannot divine, this do-nothing Senate, under the Senate Republican leadership, has bottled up the Homeland Security bill, refusing to allow the Senate to debate it and pass it and send it to the President of the United States. Here we are, the Senate is about to go out for 45 days, and what about your safety out there? What about the safety of the American people? What about the safety of the communities of this country? What about the safety of the children who attend the schools of this country? What about them? Are they going to have to wait 45 days before this bill making appropriations for homeland defense is to even be called up and debated in this Senate? Yes. We are going to go home. We are going to go home and leave those people unprotected insofar as new moneys are concerned for the Department of Homeland Security. Fie on the administration that would treat the American people so cavalierly. Here is a bill that has been waiting. This is not Senator Stevens' fault. His Appropriations Committee, of which I am the ranking member, has reported out this bill days and days ago. We should have taken that bill up and passed it. Where is it now? It is bottled up, and there are no chances--none--of calling this appropriations bill up before we go home for a 45-day recess. Go home. Go home. And yet amidst all of this, this administration has been issuing dire warnings about al-Qaida and what may happen in this country in the meantime, and particularly during a time when the American people are going through the democratic processes of nominating a President and Vice President of the United States. Now, if that isn't enough to make the hair curl, I would like to know what we need to make it curl. Unlike the billions upon billions of dollars in funding that the President has demanded from Congress to fight his war in Iraq, he has been strangely silent on the need to appropriate homeland security funding to better protect you, Senators, you, the American people at home. In the wake of the most recent terrorist alert, one would think-- wouldn't one think--that the President of the United States would have called on Congress to provide supplemental funding for new measures to thwart the threat from al-Qaida? Wouldn't one think that? There are so many weak links in our homeland security network for which added resources could be a true lifesaver. The country needs additional funds to secure our mass transit systems, to increase the inspection of air and ship cargo containers, and, yes, to increase the number of Federal air marshals. Yet the White House is doing nothing in this regard--nothing, nothing--to press Congress to move on this Homeland Security appropriations bill before we close the doors and go home. If the reports of pilots and flight attendants and air marshals cited in the Washington Times article are accurate, our Nation's aircraft may be under a renewed threat of attack. If the ``credible evidence'' cited by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the FBI is accurate, then the United States is entering an extremely--extremely-- dangerous period. And if the chairman of the so-called 9/11 Commission was correct in the assessments he made today--I believe he was--then the United States must face up to the mistakes it made in the past and to the probability of another terrorist attack of even greater magnitude than that which shook the Nation on September 11, 2001. Yet the White House is doing nothing in this regard. By pretending that funding for homeland security can wait, and by refusing to acknowledge that additional resources are needed to protect the Nation, the administration is callously playing fast and loose with the safety of the American people. I hope and I pray that America remains safe over the coming months. I hope and pray that the reporting is wrong. I hope and pray that the evidence collected by our homeland security experts is off the mark. I hope and pray that the political conventions will be the scenes of nothing more sinister than elbowing for a better view of the platform. Above all, I hope and pray that the administration will come to its senses, drop its pretension that all is well with homeland security, and provide the financial resources required to truly protect the American people at home. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I commend Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, and the rest of the conference committee for their hard work on this bipartisan authorization bill. This legislation provides an authorization of $8.168 billion for the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2005 budget, an increase of 19 percent over fiscal year 2004. This conference agreement also includes important new authority for the Coast Guard to better carry out its missions and meet the growing responsibilities of a post-September 11 environment. Sadly, when it comes to funding homeland security needs, I believe the congressional intent expressed in this bill will, yet again, be ignored at the White House. This conference report authorizes $5.4 billion for the Coast Guard's operating expenses account--an increase of 14 percent over fiscal year 2004 levels and over $231 million above the President's fiscal year 2005 request for the Coast Guard. Over 20 months ago, the President signed the Homeland Security Act creating the Department of Homeland Security. With respect to the Coast Guard, that act required that, ``. . .the authorities, functions, and capabilities of the Coast Guard to perform its missions shall be maintained intact and without significant reduction. . . .'' Unfortunately, the administration has not held up its end of the bargain. The administration has failed to provide the Coast Guard with sufficient budgets to maintain both traditional missions and new homeland security responsibilities. As a result, since September 11, 2001, there has been severe degradation in the Coast Guard's traditional mission areas. Because of the administration's negligence, the number of hours the Coast Guard is spending on many of its mission areas has dropped dramatically as compared to pre-September 11, 2001. Drug enforcement is down 41 percent; fisheries enforcement is down 26 percent; search and rescue is down 22 percent; and marine safety is down 41 percent. The administration's fiscal year 2005 request for the Coast Guard falls well short in addressing these serious deficiencies. This conference report also provides $1.1 billion for the Coast Guard's program to modernize and/or replace some 100 cutters and 200 aircraft over a multi-year period, called Deepwater. This is $334 million above the administration's request and puts the program on track to be completed in 15 years, compared to 22 years as proposed by the administration. Since the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the Coast Guard's ships and planes are being used more today than ever in the Coast Guard's history. The Coast Guard Commandant makes no bones about the fact that recapitalizing operational assets is his No. 1 priority. In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, the Commandant testified that the current condition of the aging, technologically obsolete fleet, threatens Coast Guard mission performance. He testified that Coast Guard assets are in a ``declining readiness spiral.'' The question that must be asked is, if Coast Guard assets are in a ``declining readiness spiral,'' why has the administration failed to address the situation. Despite the Commandant's plea for help, the President's budget for the Deepwater program will take 22 years to complete. Twenty-two years. This is 2 years slower than the capital improvement program envisioned when Deepwater was conceived prior to the tragic events of September 11th. The funding authorized in this bill addresses some of the operational and capital deficiencies that have been ignored by the administration. It is a good bill. However, as a result of the President setting arbitrary limits on discretionary spending, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, at whatever point the Republican leadership decides to allow the Senate to debate the measure, will not come close to funding the Coast Guard at the levels set in this bill. By all indications, the President will sign this bill into law. Unfortunately, it will likely be thrown into the pile of other homeland security promises that have gone unfulfilled.

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, there are only 22 legislative days left in this fiscal year. The Senate seems to be frittering away those precious days. To date, the Senate has only passed one appropriations bill, the Defense bill. Only four bills have been reported from the Senate Appropriations Committee. The House has passed nine appropriations bills, but apparently the Senate would rather work on political messagemaking than to take care of the Nation's vital business. So I fear, once again, that the Senate Republican leadership is setting a course for a massive omnibus spending bill. That is what it looks like. That is what we are going to do, have a massive omnibus spending bill, in all likelihood. This year, with the failure of the Senate Republican leadership to even bring the Homeland Security bill before the Senate, the Omnibus appropriations bill may include as many as 12 of the 13 annual appropriations bills. That is very conceivable to ponder. On July 8, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and FBI Director Robert Mueller announced that another terrorist attack is likely before the November elections, yet the Homeland Security appropriations bill, which the committee reported 4 weeks ago, has not even been presented to the full Senate for its consideration. What is wrong? What is wrong with this picture? Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. The flames are all around us. The Senate Republican leadership is setting the stage for another one of these massive spending bills that may be brought up in the Senate in an unamendable form. And one shudders to think what will go on behind closed doors. Who among the 100 Senators will be in the meetings that produce a massive bill that appropriates over $400 billion for veterans, education, homeland security, highways, agriculture, and the environment? Who among the 100 Senators will be in the meetings when decisions are made about including provisions on drug importation, gun liability, farm bill issues, nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain, overtime rules, or on the outsourcing of government services? Does anybody know? And, who knows what surprises, that were never debated or even contemplated in the Senate, will find their way into such an omnibus? What kind of interesting bugs will crawl into this big bad apple of a bill? I cannot tell you how many Senators will be in the room, but I can assure you of one thing. The White House will be there. You can bet on that. They will be there with their pet projects and their pet peeves and their opportunities to move certain items into their favorite States--doing their bidding, legislating right along with the Senators. They will be there. White House bureaucrats and soothsayers will suddenly become legislators for a day, or perhaps several days. That is not the way our Constitution contemplated the writing of appropriations bills. The Framers believed that Congress ought to have the power of the purse. This White House would like to have it. They would like very much to have it. But all of those constitutional niceties get blurred and blended when it comes time to deal on Omnibus appropriations bills. The checks and balances gets thrown out the window when it comes time to deal with Omnibus appropriations bills. One could conclude that the only thing the President wants from the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill is the Defense appropriations bill. That is the only thing the President would want from the 2005 appropriations process--the Defense appropriations bill. On June 24, 2004, in its Statement of Administration Policy, the White House urged the Congress to pass the Defense bill before the start of the August recess. Why? In February, the President did not ask for one thin dime, not one thin dime did he ask for as far as the costs of the war in Iraq--nothing. Administration officials had the temerity to insist that the costs of the war were not knowable. Then suddenly, on May 12, 2004, the President saw the light and realized that he needed more money for the war in Iraq. It must have come to him in a sudden vision. So, like a teenage driver, he put the foot on the gas and insisted that the Congress give him a $25 billion blank check for the escalating costs of his war in Iraq. With the help of Senator Stevens of Alaska, the blank check got canceled, but the defense conference report will include the $25 billion in additional funds. The President will get the one thing he wanted out of this year's appropriations process; he will get the Defense appropriations bill. So I must ask the American people, why is it the President has not sent messages to the Congress urging prompt action on the bill that funds the veterans health care system? I am sure the veterans are concerned about what is going to happen with respect to their needs. Moreover, does the President not know that the bill that funds our Nation's schools is stuck in subcommittee? What about the appropriations bill that funds our highway system that has not yet been considered by the House or the Senate? In February, the President proposed to put a man on Mars, but the bill that funds the space program has not been marked up by either the House or Senate appropriations committees. According to President Bush, Congress must urgently send him the Defense appropriations bill; but for all of the other appropriations bills, the attitude is ho hum; so what. According to the administration, we are facing another terrorist attack. Are we not even going to debate whether a 5-percent increase for the Department of Homeland Security is enough? Last year, we fell prey to a 7-bill omnibus, but at least the Senate debated as freestanding bills 12 of the 13 bills. Now we are down to only one debate this year on the Defense bill. That is one bill, and only one debate this year, on the Defense bill. Where do we go from here on funding the needs of the people? One of the options that has been discussed by the Republican leadership is to pass the full-year continuing resolution and leave town, get out of town, catch the next train, all aboard. That is right. The exalted servants of the people may just decide to enjoy a summer vacation if some in the Republican leadership have their druthers. What does it matter if all of the Federal Government, except the Pentagon, operates on automatic pilot for a full year? Who needs guidance from the Congress on the priorities? Who needs careful scrutiny of Federal programs? What about the new initiatives? Shouldn't they be under careful scrutiny? Shouldn't questions be asked and questions answered? Let me give you, my colleagues, a few examples of what would happen under a full-year continuing resolution. If that is what you want, I tell you what you are going to get. If the Senate Republican leadership refuses to allow the Senate to debate the Homeland Security appropriations bill, important funding in new programs would not be available to the Department. As we all know, on March 11, 2004, nearly 200 people were killed by a series of bombs detonated on the transit system in Madrid, Spain. The Department of Homeland Security responded by sending out a list of security recommendations for mass transit and rail systems in the United States. These recommendations included moving garbage cans and asking commuters to be more alert to suspicious people and packages, like unattended backpacks. However, despite my efforts, no moneys were approved for fiscal year 2004 for mass transit or rail security. Are we comatose in the Senate? Perhaps we better reach back in our desks somewhere and get our living wills. On an average workday, 32 million people travel on mass transit. Get that, 32 million people travel on mass transit on an average workday. However, under a continuing resolution, there would be no funding to help secure our mass transit and rail systems. There would be no funds for additional law enforcement presence, no funds for additional K-9 teams, no funds for additional surveillance, no funds for additional public education about the threat. Is that OK with the Senate? Following the tragic events of September 11, the administration established a firm goal for the number of Federal air marshals so that a high percentage of critical flights could be protected. The exact number of air marshals is classified, but the fact is, the Federal air marshals program has never reached the staffing level called for in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Instead, the White House has allowed the number of air marshals to fall by 9 percent, falling far below the goal. As air marshals leave the program, budget constraints prohibit the hiring of replacements. The number of air marshals continues to dwindle and the number of critical flights they are able to cover remains on a steady downward spiral. If forced to operate under a continuing resolution, the number of air marshals protecting domestic and international flights could fall by another 6 percent, putting Americans in greater danger. How can we contemplate such irresponsibility? Doesn't public safety count? How about funding for our Nation's schools? Two and a half years ago the President promised to leave no child behind. The No Child Left Behind Act authorized $20.5 billion in fiscal year 2005 for title I, the Federal program designed to help disadvantaged students in kindergarten through high school, those students who are most at risk of being left behind. A continuing resolution would freeze title I funding at just $12.3 billion. That would leave behind 2.7 million students who would not receive the title I services that were promised to them in the No Child Left Behind Act. A continuing resolution would also freeze funding for special education. Two months ago, the Senate voted overwhelmingly by a vote of 96 to 1 to authorize a $2.3 billion increase for the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act--better known, perhaps, as IDEA--in fiscal year 2005, and fully fund the law within 7 years. A CR would put the lie to that pledge. As candidate for President in 2000, President Bush said: College is every parent's dream for their children. It's the path to achievement. We should make this path open to all. But, my dear friends, under the Bush administration, the cost of tuition has gone up by 26 percent, making it harder and harder for low- and middle-income students to pursue that dream. The Pell grant: A maximum Pell grant now covers only 34 percent of the average annual cost of college compared to 72 percent in 1976. Under a continuing resolution, there would be no increase in the maximum Pell grant now set at $4,050. There would be no increases for the College Work-Study Program or for other campus-based aid programs. So much for dreams, so much for promises, so much for empty talk. For the construction and restoration of our Nation's highways and bridges, a long-term continuing resolution would stifle the flow of billions of new dollars going to our States to improve safety conditions, minimize congestion, and create badly needed jobs. Just this past February, more than three-quarters of the Senate, 76 Senators, approved a surface transportation bill that called for an overall commitment of highway funds for fiscal year 2005 of $37.9 billion. Under a long-term continuing resolution, highway funding would be $4.25 billion less than that amount, a $4.25 billion shortfall. That difference represents more than 200,000 jobs across America, jobs that are desperately needed all across our States. But the Senate is in gridlock, much like the gridlock on our Nation's highways. Our Nation's military is serving gallantly in Iraq and Afghanistan, but under a continuing resolution the Veterans Health Administration, unbelievably, would get drastically reduced health care services for our fighting men and women. Approximately 237,000 veterans would not be able to receive care, and veterans outpatient clinics would schedule 2.6 million fewer appointments. The waiting list for veterans seeking medical care would grow to over 230,000. What a way to treat our brave men and women. Shabby and shameful are the two words that come to mind. Al-Qaida operatives are in the United States preparing for another terrorist attack. The FBI must mobilize to find those terrorists before they attack us. But a full-year continuing resolution would force the FBI to freeze all hiring in fiscal year 2005. That would result in the FBI losing 500 special agents and negating the proposed increase of 428 special agents. Nor would the FBI be able to fund any of the new initiatives proposed in the fiscal year 2005 budget request, including resources for the new office of intelligence counterterrorism investigations, counterintelligence, and fighting cyber crime. Another casualty of a full-year continuing resolution would be programs to combat HIV/AIDS, particularly in eastern Europe and Asia where the epidemic is spreading out of control. Only one in five people worldwide have access to HIV/AIDS prevention programs. Yet a continuing resolution would reduce funding for those programs by almost half a billion. That means there would be hundreds of thousands of new infections of the deadly virus--infections that could have been prevented, lives that could have been saved. The list goes on and on and, like Tennyson's book, goes on. Members of this Congress have a duty and a responsibility to the American people. They do not want us to approve massive omnibus spending bills that no one has bothered to read. They do not want us to pass mindless continuing resolutions that put the Government on automatic pilot and their safety on the line. They do not want us to cash our own paychecks without doing the work we were sent here to do. We are paid to debate legislation. We are paid to make careful choices on behalf of the people. The elections are coming, and if we are not going to do our work, then we should not claim the title of Senator. Just like Donald Trump, come November, the American people might decide to send us a very straightforward message: You're fired. Last week, the Republican leadership jammed into the defense conference report a provision ``deeming'' the level of spending for fiscal year 2005 at the level in the budget resolution conference report. It seems now we are ``deeming'' our way through budget debates. ``Deeming''--this provision was not contained in the Senate or House version of the Defense bill. It was not debated here on the Senate floor. Yet this innocuous-sounding ``deeming'' provision will have far- reaching consequences. That provision will result in appropriations bills that inadequately fund homeland security, education, veterans, transportation, and other programs to meet domestic needs. And the consequences are not just on paper. The American public is being cheated year after year by the steady erosion of money available to fund the public's priorities. They are being ``deemed'' down the river. This year, even while the directors of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the CIA are warning us of al-Qaida in our midst, we still are unaccountably and stubbornly sitting on the Homeland Security appropriations bill as if in total defiance of the dangers to our country and to the people's safety. None of this is the fault of our able Appropriations Committee chairman, Senator Ted Stevens. Early on, I encouraged Chairman Stevens to move 13 freestanding, fiscally responsible appropriations bills through the committee and on to the Senate floor. Senator Stevens instructed his 13 subcommittee chairmen to produce balanced and bipartisan bills; however, the Senate Republican leadership has refused to free up floor time for the appropriations bills. I will not be a party to such chicanery, and I implore the leadership of this body to stop the games and stop the politics. And I ask the majority leadership to set aside the pending business and proceed to the consideration of Calendar Order No. 588, H.R. 4567, the fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security appropriations bill. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today the Senate faces a cloture vote which we should never have faced. We have been put in this position by a majority leadership that is toying with the faith and the trust of people across this country. I share their faith, and I share their belief in the sanctity of marriage. I am very disappointed that we have a procedural vote, instead of a vote in direct consideration of a constitutional amendment. What these people want is a vote, up or down; what they are going to get is more rigamarole in this Senate. The majority party is manipulating the faith of many Americans, with the unwitting aid of many well-meaning religious leaders, which is one of the most disappointing aspects of this issue. The majority party does not expect to win this cloture vote. In fact, the majority party likely does not want to win this cloture vote. The White House and the Republican leadership want to campaign on the fact that Democrats blocked this amendment, that Democrats somehow oppose marriage. How ludicrous. Yet, the Republican leadership will try to capitalize on this procedural vote with fundraising letters, campaign stops, and election-day votes. It is an abomination, an absolute failure of trust, to hatch such calculated political schemes on those Americans who genuinely believe in this issue. The majority party wants this cloture motion to fail. I, for one, will not help in that effort. I will not help to manipulate the churches and the pulpits across this country. I will call that bluff, and vote for cloture on the motion to proceed. While I strongly support, and will continue to staunchly defend, efforts to strengthen and preserve marriage in our society, I oppose amending the U.S. Constitution based on the resolution that is before this Senate. The resolution is rife with contradictions and ambiguities that would, with certainty, lead to nothing but confusion and endless litigation in the future. I had hoped that the Senate would have been given the opportunity to debate and to vote clearly, yes or no, on that proposal, and not cloud the debate with procedural votes that few outside of this Capitol understand. We are in a phase in this country's history that seems to tend toward the belief that cultural conflict, deep wrenching questions about right and wrong, should be fodder for political games. That view is high folly when the legislative vehicle is the Constitution of these United States. As much as I sympathize with the deep personal and religious convictions of those who revere the institution of marriage, we must not start down the road of using our national charter to win political or culture wars. Such a course could lead to the unraveling of individual freedoms and eventually could leave our Constitution in tatters and disrepute--making our beloved Federal charter the most tragic and dramatic victim of the fierce, unprincipled, political conflicts that rage in our land today.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the current business before the Senate?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. The Chair has indicated that the Senate is presently considering the class action bill; therefore, I would think it appropriate for me to add a title to the remarks I am about to make, a title which would be as follows: ``Protecting the People's Interests Instead of the Campaign Interests.'' This morning, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and FBI Director Mueller briefed Senators, and I am told that he indicated that al-Qaida cells are operating in the United States and that multiple and simultaneous attacks are possible before the November elections. Now, I have been listening, as I sat home with my sick wife, to talk about an amendment to the Constitution. I have been married now more than 67 years to a coal miner's daughter, and I have been listening to all of the wrangling that has been going on on this floor. I therefore felt it appropriate to make these few remarks, especially in the light of what I am told Secretary Ridge said; namely, credible reporting now indicates that al-Qaida is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our Democratic process. Just a month ago, the Attorney General announced that he had credible intelligence from multiple sources that al-Qaida plans to hit the United States hard in the next few months. In the weeks following the Madrid railway bombing, the Washington Post reported that the President informed the Republican congressional leadership that he was all but certain that terrorists would attempt a major attack on the United States before the November elections. Why are we wrangling over this political bill? Why not be talking about protecting the people of the United States and their properties against such an al-Qaida attack? It would seem to me that should have priority over politics. Your lives, the people out there who are watching this Senate floor through those electronic lenses, your lives, we are told, are at stake. Then why do we have before this Senate this class action bill? Why not talk about the people's lives that are at stake? The administration says the people's lives are at stake and that we may expect multiple attacks. What a sinister threat we are obviously facing in this country. What are we doing on this floor? Wrangling, wrangling, wrangling over a class action bill. That is not going to sit very well with the American people, I don't believe, once they stop and think about it. It would also be appropriate at this point, although it isn't very common that it is done on this floor--the Holy Bible is probably not something that one should carry onto the floor of the Senate, but I am going to read just two verses of Scripture from the book of St. Luke, chapter 13. These two verses are the sixth and seventh verses: He [meaning Jesus] spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down;-- Cut it down-- why cumbereth it the ground? I believe there is a day of reckoning coming and it isn't afar off, when the American people are going to look at this fig tree and say: These 3 years I come looking for fruit on this fig tree and I found none, cut it down. They are going to say that to this administration, to this White House. These 3 years--these 3 years--behold, these 3 years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Where are all the wranglers? The people of this country are going to render a reckoning to those who are in the leadership in this country and they are going to say: Behold, these 3 years I came here seeking fruit on this tree and found none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? Just a few weeks ago, the 9/11 Commission released interim reports concluding that the terrorists who are intent on doing us harm are cunning and agile. These reports also indicate that our Government agencies were not prepared to deter or respond to such attacks. I fear that we are still not prepared to deter or respond to such attacks. Despite the threats, despite the dangers, despite even today's warnings from Secretary Ridge, the Senate this afternoon continues to debate legislation to reform the class action lawsuit process. The Senate has spent 3 days on the bill without a single rollcall vote. Next week it is expected that the Senate will debate a proposed constitutional amendment on marriage. Now, hear me, listen to that, a proposed constitutional amendment on marriage. There are few people in this Chamber who know as much about that subject as I do. My wife and I having been married now 67 years, going on toward 70, if it is the Lord's will. It is expected that the Senate will debate a proposed constitutional amendment on marriage. Well, these are important matters. Nobody would say otherwise. But, frankly, they are not that urgent. They are not life or death issues, but they are the priority for the Senate majority leadership. I believe there are other, more urgent matters that we should be considering. The Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously reported the Homeland Security appropriations bill 3 weeks ago, on June 17. Since June 17, the bill has sat collecting dust. Why are we not debating that bill? I say to the leadership: Why are we not debating that bill? In response to the Madrid train bombings, both the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee reported bills authorizing new Federal programs to secure our mass transit systems and our rail systems. The Governmental Affairs Committee has reported a bill authorizing first responders grants. The Senate has passed an authorization bill to increase resources for the Coast Guard. But where is the bill? The bill is mired in conference. Why are we not moving forward on these bills? Why are we piddling around here, talking about a political bill, class action suits--class action suits? In the face of all the dire warnings that this administration, this White House, this Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, this President--all of the dire warnings that we have heard, in the face of that yet we are here piddling around, dawdling, arguing, wrangling over a class action bill. How about that, those of you people out there in the prairies, out there on the rivers and the river valleys, out there in the Rocky Mountains, those of you in Appalachia? How about that? Your life, the lives of your children are at stake. They say these terrorists are prepared to strike in multiple places and yet the Senate is dawdling, talking about a class action bill. We only have 2 weeks left after this one. We need to act. Are we going to wait until we go home? Are we going to wait until after the conventions meet? Are we going to wait another 6 weeks and then come back and bring up the appropriations bill making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security? Is that what we propose to do, daudle? Fiddle-faddle? What is wrong with the Senate? The Senate is a do-nothing place these days, a far cry from what the Senate has been in the years I have seen go by. While the Bush administration has consistently promised the American people that they are making this country safe, the facts show the administration has consistently put homeland security on the back burner. Time after time after time, the distinguished Democratic whip who sits on the Appropriations Committee of the Senate, not only a highly respected member of that committee but a very able member of that committee, knows that we have tried time and time and time again to add moneys for homeland security in that committee and here on the Senate floor. And time and time and time again, we have been turned down by a Republican administration and by the Republican leadership of this body. Deny that, if you may. I can furnish chapter and verse regarding the amendments that we have called up trying to bring greater safety to the American people against a terrorist attack, and time and time again those amendments have been defeated on the floor of the Senate. For this administration, homeland security can wait and wait and wait and then wait. What do they want to do, wait another 6 weeks now until we come back after the August recess and then take up the Homeland Security appropriations bill? Is that the game? What might happen in the meantime? This administration created a new Department of Homeland Security that rearranges the deck chairs, but it cannot energize that Department with the financial resources that it needs to make America and the American people safer, and many of the resources that are provided to the Department have yet to be spent. Get that. Many of the moneys are still in the pipeline. They have been in the pipeline. They have yet to be spent. What a dawdling White House. In response to the terrorist threat, one might have anticipated that the President would have requested the supplemental appropriations for securing our mass transit systems, for inspecting more containers coming into our ports, for increasing inspections of air cargo, or for increasing the number of Federal air marshals. One might have expected that the President would have amended his 2005 budget request to increase his anemic, 3-percent proposed increase for the Department of Homeland Security. What a shame. What a sad commentary on a White House that plays Russian roulette with the lives of the American people. Instead, the White House did nothing. Instead, the Department seems satisfied with a go-slow, business-as-usual approach to homeland security. The Department issued advice to mass transit systems for improving security but provided no funding to increase law enforcement presence or to deploy K-9 teams. Despite the approach of a busy summer season for airline passengers, the Department of Homeland Security has allowed the number of Federal air marshals to shrink precipitously, and the President's budget would result in even deeper reductions next year. I have worked with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens of Alaska, year after year, month after month, time after time to increase appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security. Senator Stevens and his committee have brought out bill after bill, and we brought bill after bill to the Senate floor over these years. We have joined together hand in hand on many occasions to seek the administration's help and have asked the administration to send up Tom Ridge before the Senate Appropriations Committee to testify back before he became a Secretary and subject to the confirmation of the Senate. Our requests fell upon deaf ears. Despite concerns about the safety of our borders, the Department, in March, imposed a hiring freeze on Customs officers and Immigration inspectors. Millions of dollars that Congress approved for port security, for bus security, for hazardous materials grants 9 months ago have not been awarded. Millions of dollars that Congress approved in February of 2003, 17 months ago, for the purchase of additional emergency equipment for the 28 urban search and rescue teams have not been spent. Millions of dollars have not been spent. Having this money sit in Washington, DC, does not make any American citizen any safer. As a result of the President's decision not to seek supplemental appropriations, the Transportation Security Administration was forced to cut funding for training passenger and baggage screeners and for purchasing equipment for airport checkpoints. You who listen today, it is your life and the lives of your family members and your neighbors and your friends that are at stake. As the lines at our airports get longer and longer this summer, our citizens will wonder who is responsible. Who is responsible for this lackadaisical, careless attitude on the part of our government? Where are our government leaders? Where is the Senate? Why is the Senate so mute? That great deliberative body, where is it? Why is it so mute? Why are we today debating a class action bill when our lives are at stake? It has been 2\1/2\ years since Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, tried to blow up an aircraft in flight over the ocean with explosives that he carried onto the aircraft. Are we any closer to deploying systems that could check passengers for explosives? Sadly, sadly, the answer is no, no, no. It has been over 2\1/2\ years since the Congress passed the USA Patriot Act and set a goal of tripling the Border Patrol and Customs officers on the northern border. Have we met the goal? Sadly, we are 1,428 officers short of the goal. It has been nearly 3 years since 9/11 when police and firemen in the World Trade Center could not talk to one another on their radios and tragically hundreds of them perished never to rise in this world again. Are we any closer to providing police and firemen across the Nation with interoperable communications equipment? Sadly, the answer is no. The EPA has estimated that there are 100 chemical plants in this country--several of them down in southern West Virginia, where one of the greatest chemical complexes in the Western Hemisphere exists. The EPA has estimated that there are 100 chemical plants in this country, each of which if attacked could harm over 1 million people. In February of 2003, the National Infrastructure Protection Center, which is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, issued a threat warning that al-Qaida may attempt to launch conventional attacks on nuclear or chemical plants. A year and a half later, has the Department actually hardened the security of the chemical plants? Sadly, that same old refrain: No. More than 95 percent of the Nation's overseas cargo moves through our ports. The U.S. Coast Guard estimates that a 1-month closure of a major U.S. port would cost our national economy $60 billion. We inspect only 9 percent of the cargo containers that come into our ports. There are 361 ports. In order to help secure the ports, the Coast Guard estimates $1.1 billion is required to implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act in the first year and $5.4 billion over 10 years. How much did the President request? The President requested only $46 million for port security grants, a cut of 62 percent. We need to do more than that. The American people expect more than that. The American people have a right to expect more than that. The American people have a right to expect from this administration, this White House, better consideration, better safety, greater concern. There is a day of reckoning coming, and it is not far off. Let me turn to this old book our fathers and mothers read. A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. He found none. Then, said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none; cut it down. Why cumbereth it the ground? The owner of that vineyard is coming soon, just a few more months. The American people are coming to that vineyard seeking fruit thereon and they are going to say these 3 years we have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and found none. Cut it down. Listen to that, White House. Cut it down. On March 11 of this year, terrorists attacked commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, killing nearly 200 innocent passengers. The President of the United States has not requested a dime for mass transit security. No one is suggesting we set up a passenger screening system at our train stations like we have at airports, but we should be investing in additional guards, better training, additional K-9 teams, better surveillance. Americans use public transportation over 32 million times per workday. The Senate Banking Committee has reported a bill authorizing over $3.5 billion for fiscal year 2005 for mass transit security and the Senate Commerce Committee has reported a bill authorizing $1 billion for rail and Amtrak security. Our citizens deserve to be secure as they travel to work and back home again. Time and time again over the last 3 years I have offered amendments to provide funding for securing our mass transit systems and the White House consistently called the amendments wasteful or unnecessary spending. We need to do more. The Hart-Rudman report on the terrorist threat in this country recommended a $98 billion investment in equipping and training for our first responders over the next 5 years, yet the President did not request an increase in first responder funding. Instead, the President has proposed to cut first responder funding in the Department by over $700 million, including a $246 million cut in fire grants, and governmentwide the President is proposing cuts of $1.5 billion. We need to do more, not less. We are living in perilous times. Perilous times. We are a country that faces increasing threats from terrorists right here at home. As Secretary Ridge was said to have explained to the country this morning, there is a growing concern about a potential terrorist attack before the November election. We are vulnerable, and the continual warnings and calls for vigilance only magnify that vulnerability. What is our response to the Secretary's warnings in this Senate, in this dear old body which has been my home for almost 46 years? We give whistles to staff in the Capitol and we hope for the best. We sit back and wait and wait and wait on an appropriations bill that is right here that could have been called up days ago. We sit back and wait and wait on this appropriations bill that would improve Homeland Security. Instead of action, we delay. Instead of action, we call up a class action bill. Instead of action, we get wrangled in political arguing. We delay Homeland Security funds for police officers and firefighters. We delay immediate investments in border security and port security. We say loudly for all the country to hear, Homeland Security can wait. No, it cannot wait. Homeland Security cannot wait. And remember, there will be a day of reckoning. It will come as surely as I stand here in this place, as sure as the sparks fly upward. That day of reckoning is coming ever near around the corner. Indeed, the majority leader could have scheduled the Homeland Security appropriations bill this week, but rather than bring up that critical legislation this week the majority chose to go to the class action bill. And once the Senate began consideration of the class action bill, then it was decided that Senators could only offer those amendments the leadership deemed appropriate. Now, how is that? How is that for filling the tree? Here we are in the middle of July, with 11 more legislative days left before the Senate recesses for the respective party conventions; and that is going to be for 45 days we will recess, take or give a little. So the Senate has acted on exactly one appropriations bill, the Defense Appropriations bill. Now that is not the fault of the Senate Appropriations Committee. No, you can bet on that. That is not the fault of the Senate Appropriations Committee. It is said that actions speak louder than words, and I believe that to be true in this case. Given all of the priorities facing this country, the majority leader has said, I am told, the most urgent need the Senate should consider is the class action bill and has further indicated that next week the Senate will consider a constitutional amendment that no one believes has the number of votes needed for adoption. Amend the Constitution of the United States--here it is, folks. I hold it in my hand. Let's just amend it one more time. Homeland security funding will sit on the sidelines. Is that what the Senate should be about, I ask you, the people out there? This Senate should step back from this folly and put the people's interests first-- the people's business, the people's lives. I simply do not understand why the Senate is twiddling its thumbs on legislation that could be considered at some other time rather than addressing homeland security issues when it matters most. I watched them tear the building down, A gang of men in a busy town; With a ho-heave-ho, and a lusty yell, They swung a beam and a sidewall fell. I asked the foreman, ``Are these men skilled, And the men you would hire if you had to build?'' He gave a laugh and said, ``No, indeed; Just common labor is all you need. I could easily wreck in a day or two What builders have taken years to do.'' I thought to myself as I went away, Which of these roles have I tried to play: Am I a builder who works with care, Measuring life by the rule and square, Am I shaping my deeds to a well-made plan, Patiently doing the best I can? Or am I a wrecker who walks the town, Content with the labor of tearing down? Think about it. Now, I had not been told about my dear friend's, the chairman's, proposal about taking this up, even though I am the ranking member, actually the senior member of the committee, the only person on that committee who has been on it for 46 years, the senior Democrat in this whole creation here. I was not told about any proposal that my chairman was about to make. I would be happy to consider any proposal. I want to work with the chairman. I say, why not take up this bill on Monday of next week? Why not? Why not bring this bill up on Monday, and let's have at it? I will leave that question for the leadership. I hope it will receive some consideration. A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. First of all, he is my friend and nothing as far as I am concerned will ever mar that friendship, but I have to say that my blood boiled last Monday evening when I learned that the House Republican leadership, with the support of Senate Republican leaders, I believe, had decided to put a placeholder amendment into the Defense appropriations bill that could be used in conference to increase the $7.4 trillion statutory debt limit perhaps to a level of $8.1 trillion, the level needed for 2005. That placeholder language meant that the House and the Senate conferees would be free to slip in language to increase the statutory debt limit by an untold amount, maybe $690 billion, maybe more, without either body of Congress ever having to vote in public on the matter. This is a tough vote. I can understand how the Republican leadership in the House, the Senate, and downtown, the White House, would like to see that limit slipped into this bill in conference. Again, the chairman of this committee has steadfastly shown great knowledge and great determination in his efforts to bring forth to the Senate for its consideration all 13 appropriations bills. That has been tough for him. I thank him for his commitment with respect to the Defense appropriations bill and the conference report which will be coming along. I thank him for that. He is a legislator in the true sense of the word. Also, in 2002, when I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the House Republican leaders tried this same trick on the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill. I refused. I steadfastly refused to include such language in the conference report. Instead, the Senate took up, debated, and passed a freestanding bill to increase the debt limit. The House then voted to approve the measure with a one-vote margin. That is the responsible way to increase the debt limit. We owe this to the American public. We should not cloak the debt increase in the camouflage uniform of a Defense appropriations bill. So I thank Senator Frist and Senator Stevens for making a commitment today that the Defense appropriations conference report will not include an increase in the statutory debt limit. The Senate should vote on this issue on a freestanding bill. I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee--I had hoped the leader would be here so I could ask him--is he making a commitment and is the leader making a commitment that when the Senate considers the debt limit increase it will be on a freestanding bill and that it will not come to the Senate on any other appropriations conference report or in any other unrelated conference report? Can the committee chairman make that commitment?

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