Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I agree with my colleagues and I encourage the NCDDM to apply for the grants under this office. As a training center for those who oversee our State and local first responders, this program should be in good standing for Office for Domestic Preparedness grant programs.

Mr. BYRD. I concur that this funding could be used as the Senator from New Mexico describes.

Mr. BYRD. I also agree that the Department of Homeland Security should continue the efforts that have been initiated by the Senator from New Mexico. There are serious needs that ought to be met along the border in his State, and it is my belief that the Department should continue to construct vehicle barriers using the funding we have provided in this bill. National infrastructure simulation and analysis center

Mr. BYRD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Nation's eyes have been turned to war overseas. The country's focus has been on the daily battles in Iraq. On the news almost daily there have been reports of American soldiers still dying. While the President arguably says that the mission in Iraq has been accomplished, the mission to protect our citizens here at home is far from complete. Immediately after September 11, 2001, there was a great outcry for strengthening homeland security. Congress responded, infusing $40 billion into the war on terrorism--including efforts to better protect our citizens here at home. But since those early weeks after that clear September morning, the momentum has slowed. The pace has slackened. Homeland security initiatives are falling behind. Just last month, former Senator Warren Rudman chaired a task force at the Council on Foreign Relations that examined investments in police, fire, and emergency medical teams. This blue ribbon panel included Nobel laureates, U.S. military leaders, former high-level government officials, and other senior experts, and was advised by former White House terrorism and cyber-security chief Richard Clarke. The results of their examination should shake this Congress from its homeland security slumber and especially it should shake the White House from its slumber and from its focus elsewhere. The task force found that, nearly two years after 9/11, the United States is drastically underfunding local emergency responders and remains dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil, particularly one involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-impact conventional weapons. The panel concluded that, if the Nation does not take immediate steps to better identify and address the urgent needs of emergency responders, the next terrorist incident could be even more devastating than 9/11. Imagine that, more devastating than September 11, 2001. The underlying legislation before the Senate is the Fiscal Year 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. It provides more than $28 billion for a variety of programs, from better border security to natural disaster response efforts. But while this is a step forward, the legislation does not accomplish enough. It does not provide the investments in protections that the Nation so desperately needs. This fact is not the fault of Subcommittee Chairman Thad Cochran or Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens. The hand that they were dealt was poor from the start. But that does not mean that this Senate needs to settle for less than is needed. The amendment that I have offered would add critical dollars to some of our Nation's most vulnerable entities. It is a responsible $1.75 billion approach to begin to close the enormous gaps in America's homeland security. The amendment to which I address my remarks at this time is about fulfilling our promises to the American people. After 9/ 11, Congress passed the Patriot Act. It passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act. It passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. It passed the Enhanced Border Security Act. And the President signed these with great fanfare. But when it comes to securing our homeland, the administration follows the same pattern. The President seems to be satisfied with rhetoric, which doesn't cost anything, rather than working with Congress to provide real dollars. The amendment I offer today is intended to fulfill the promises made for securing our homeland. It would add a total of $1.75 billion for critical homeland security programs. The amendment adds: $602 million for Maritime and Land Security, including port security and transit security; $729.5 million for first responder funding for our police, fire and emergency medical personnel, including funding for high threat urban areas; $238.5 million for security improvements at U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico; it includes 100 million for air cargo security; and it includes $80 million for protections at chemical facilities. With public warnings ringing in our ears from Secretary Ridge that another terrorist attack is inevitable, some may argue that our homeland security needs seem endless, and therefore the Congress must set limits. I agree that they are endless and that Congress must set limits. That is why this amendment focuses on the specific expanded homeland security missions that Congress has authorized since 9/11, but that the administration has yet to adequately fund. Unfortunately, the budget resolution endorsed by this White House has forced us to exclude from the bill some funding that both the Congress and the President have recognized as being real needs. This amendment focuses on those critical shortfalls. It puts the beam on those critical shortfalls. It puts the microscope right down to their level. One of the mysteries about the President's budget is the budget for the Transportation Security Administration, or TSA. TSA was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 and was supposed to focus on securing all modes of transportation. Yet the President's budget includes only $86 million or 2 percent of the TSA budget for maritime and land security. Yes, I said 2 percent--just 2 percent of the TSA budget for maritime and land security. The rest of the President's budget request is for aviation security and for--you guessed it--administration. What about securing our ports? What about securing our trains? What about securing our railroad tunnels, and our subways? What about buses or securing the trucks that carry hazardous materials? In fact, the President's budget requests 2.5 times more for administering the TSA bureaucracy than he does for securing the Nation's ports, trains, trucks, and buses. This amendment would add $602 million for maritime and land transportation funding. To his credit, Chairman Cochran provided $295 million for these programs. My amendment further enhances the good work Senator Cochran has begun. On November 25, 2002, the same day that the President signed the Homeland Security Act, he also signed the Maritime Transportation Security Act--MTSA, putting in place significant new standards for improving the security of our 361 ports around the Nation. On July 1, the Coast Guard published regulations putting the MTSA into action. During the Senate Appropriations Committee's homeland security hearings last year, one witness, Stephen Flynn, noted that the Nation's seaports: . . . are the only part of an international boundary that the federal government invests no money in terms of security. . . . Most ports, the best you get is a chain link fence with maybe some barbed wire. Let me repeat that. The Appropriations Committee of the Senate conducted hearings last week, anent homeland security. And we heard testimony from mayors, Governors, and from seven Department heads--I am talking about Departments in the President's Cabinet--and from FEMA as well. And one of these witnesses was Stephen Flynn. Here is what he said about the Nation's seaports. He said: [They] are the only part of an international boundary that the federal government invests no money in terms of security. . . . Most ports, [he said] the best you get is a chain link fence with maybe some barbed wire. Comforting? Is that comforting? Consider that U.S. ports receive 16,000 cargo containers per day and more than 6 million containers per year. Consider the fact that U.S. ports are home to oil refineries and chemical plants that process noxious, volatile chemicals. Consider the additional fact that there are 68 nuclear powerplants located along U.S. waterways and that the average shipping container measures 8 feet by 40 feet and can hold 60,000 pounds. Consider, further, that a ship or tanker transporting cargo can hold more explosives and dangerous materials than could ever be smuggled in an airplane or a truck crossing a land border. Yet despite the clear danger, the best port protection the American people have is a chain link fence? It is unfathomable--unfathomable--why we have not insisted this amendment be signed into law months ago. This amendment would make sure that more than a chain link fence is protecting the Nation's ports. Not too much to ask, is it? The Coast Guard has estimated that it will cost the ports $5.4 billion during the next decade to implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act standards, including $1.1 billion this year; and yet the President did not request one thin dime--can you believe it, not one dime--for port security. The amendment that I will offer, which is at the desk, would increase port security grant funding from the $150 million contained in the bill by $460 million, thus providing a total of $610 million for this program. The Commandant of the Coast Guard testified before the House authorizing committee on June 3, 2003, about the implementation of the MTSA legislation. Here is what he said: The regulatory impact on the maritime industry will be significant, and the time line for implementing the new robust maritime security requirements is exceptionally short. However, the administration, while aggressively supporting Federal security funding for the aviation industry, has failed in four straight spending requests to include a single penny--not one red cent--for port security grants even though 95 percent of all non- North American U.S. trade enters our 361 ports around the Nation. This is serious. During our Homeland Security Subcommittee hearings this spring, I asked Under Secretary Asa Hutchinson why there was no money requested in the President's budget for port security grants and Mr. Hutchinson testified that he believed it was the responsibility of the port industry--the responsibility of the port industry. Yet the port industry's first priority is moving goods through ports as quickly as possible because that increases profits. There must be incentives if we are to realistically expect the ports to improve security. This year, the Transportation Security Administration received over $1 billion of applications from the ports for the limited funding that was approved by Congress last year. There clearly is a demand from the ports, for help to harden physical security to reduce the Nation's well documented seaport vulnerabilities. These are vulnerabilities that are well documented. The amendment also addresses other important homeland security needs authorized by the Maritime Transportation Security Act--and yet again not funded. The Maritime Transportation Security Act requires that vessel and port facility owners prepare and submit security plans to the Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of deterring a transportation security incident. The Coast Guard serves as the lead agency to develop a National Maritime Transportation Security Plan and review all security plans prepared by vessel or facility owners or operators. To meet requirements set in the MTSA, vessel and facility owners must submit security plans to the Coast Guard for review and approval by the end of calendar year 2003. But, once again, the administration provided no funding to the Coast Guard for this effort or for tracking compliance with the plans in its fiscal year 2004 budget request. In recent testimony, Coast Guard Commandant ADM Thomas H. Collins acknowledged that the Coast Guard still needs an additional $70 million and 150 full-time employees by this fall to review and approve more than 10,000 security plans by vessel and facility owners. My amendment provides the money. My amendment also provides $57 million for public transit grants. According to a Mineta Transportation Institute study, one-third of terrorist attacks worldwide have been on transportation systems, and transit systems are the mode most commonly attacked. According to the study, nine surface transportation systems were the target of more than 195 terrorist attacks from 1997 through the year 2000. The approximately 6,000 transit agencies in the United States provide more than 9 billion trips each year representing 43 billion passenger miles, and yet the administration has provided minimal funding for transit security. The General Accounting Office, the GAO, recently reported that: Insufficient funding is the most significant challenge in making transit systems as safe and secure as possible. Mr. President, at just 8 of the 10 transit agencies surveyed, the General Accounting Office identified the need for security improvements estimated at $700 million. The General Accounting Office also found that: TSA has yet to exert full responsibility for the security of any transportation mode other than aviation. The chemical attack on the Tokyo subway system in 1995 is a sobering reminder of how a terrorist attack on one transit system can affect human lives, the economy, and confidence in our transit systems. How many times do we have to witness attacks on transit systems in other countries before we secure our transit systems? This amendment would provide $57 million in direct grants to the Transportation Security Administration to help with that shortfall. The amendment also would add $15 million to the $10 million already provided in the bill for intercity bus grants. A study conducted by the Mineta Transportation Institute, ``Protecting Public Surface Transportation against Terrorism and Serious Crime,'' found that during the period 1997 through 2000, 54 percent of the worldwide attacks on surface transportation systems were against buses or bus terminals. Almost 800 million people ride over-the-road buses annually, more than the airlines and Amtrak combined. Intercity buses serve approximately 5,000 communities daily, compared to roughly 500 each for the airlines and Amtrak. Intercity buses serve those who truly need public transportation--rural residents who have no other public transportation alternatives and urban residents who must rely on affordable public transportation. Given the important role that intercity buses play in the Nation's transportation system and their susceptibility to terrorist attacks, they must be protected. One of the most glaring funding deficiencies identified in the recent Rudman report is the poor support for first responders. The Rudman report estimated that America will fall approximately $98.4 billion short of meeting critical emergency responder needs in the next 5 years, if current funding levels are maintained. But the legislation before the Senate does not even maintain that current funding level. While the underlying bill provides first responder funding at a level that is $303 million above the President's request, it is $434 million below the level that the Congress approved for the current fiscal year. In the nearly 2 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, States and cities have worked to better protect the Nation. They have undertaken critical assessments of vulnerabilities. They have provided specialized training to police officers, firemen, and emergency medical teams. They have attempted to close as many gaps as possible to prevent another terrorist attack. But unfortunately, for many communities, they have had to act without the support of the Federal Government. A March 2003 analysis by the U.S. Conference of Mayors reports that cities are spending an additional $70 million per week on personnel costs alone, to keep up with security requirements. Mayors and governors have contacted almost every Member of this Congress, if not all, practically begging for additional funds to help defray the huge expenses for homeland security. Their requests come at a time when cities, counties, and states are in the worst financial shape in decades. Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn stated earlier this year that ``We've dug deep into our own pockets. Now we really need the help of the Federal Government.'' This is taken from the Los Angeles Times of February 23. They have come hat in hand for help, and we ought not turn our backs on them. My amendment adds $500 million to the budget of the Office of Domestic Preparedness for first responders. Specifically, it provides $250 million for State grants, and $250 million for high threat urban areas, bringing the total for high-threat urban areas to $1 billion. This amendment provides funds to meet the immediate and growing needs that State and local first responders have for funds for equipment, training, homeland security exercises, and planning. The needs are great. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Fire Protection Association, only 13 percent of fire departments have the equipment and training to handle an incident involving chemical or biological agents. Forty percent of fire department personnel involved in hazardous material response lack formal training in those duties. Only 10 percent of fire departments in the United States have the personnel and equipment to respond to a building collapse. Funds would be used to purchase: Personal protective equipment for first responders--chemical resistant gloves, boots, and undergarments; interoperable communications equipment, portable radios, satellite phones, batteries; detection equipment--equipment, to monitor, detect, sample, identify and quantify chemical, biological, radiological/ nuclear and explosive agents; medical supplies and pharmaceuticals; and, training costs and paying overtime costs associated with attendance at training for emergency responders, emergency managers, and public officials. My amendment also provides $79.5 million for grants for interoperable communications equipment. This bill currently includes no funds specifically for interoperable communications equipment. This amendment proposes to add $79.5 million, the same amount that was provided in fiscal year 2003. The initial $79.5 million was a small step in starting the process of integrating and coordinating communications equipment between and among first responders firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical personnel--a deficiency uncovered during the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Only one-fourth of all fire departments can communicate with all of their rescue partners. The Council on Foreign Relations' June, 2003 study on homeland security needs estimated that the need for interoperable communications equipment funding was $6.8 billion over the next 5 years. The amendment also provides an additional $150 million for fire grants. The Senate bill includes $750 million for assistance to firefighter grants, roughly the same amount as last year. This amendment would add $150 million for fire grants, which would bring the total to $900 million, the level authorized. Our fire departments need this money. On average, fire departments across the country have only enough radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift, and breathing apparatuses for only one third. In the 3 years this program has been in existence, it has become one of the best run programs in the Federal Government. This Senate should fund this program at the authorized level. Our frontline defenders deserve no less. In October of 2001, the President signed the Patriot Act which called for tripling the number of border patrol agents and Customs and immigration inspectors on the northern border. In May of 2002, the President signed the Enhanced Border Security Act, which authorized significant new investments in border patrol agents and facilities. The goals with regard to Customs inspectors and border facilities cannot be met with the limited funding that was made available for this bill. The amendment I have offered adds $100 million for improvements to our border ports-of-entry. There are 197 ports-of-entry on our Nation's land borders. Of those, 128 out of 197 are stretched across our 5,525 mile long border with Canada. The remaining sites are along our highly-trafficked border with Mexico. Most facilities along the U.S.-Canada border were constructed either as part of the Civilian Conservation Corps program during the Great Depression or in the period between 1950 and 1965. These older facilities are having an increasingly difficult time meeting the energy and power requirements of today's technology. Along the U.S.-Mexico border, traffic both in people and goods has more than doubled since the last major border infrastructure effort was launched during the Reagan administration. Trade with Canada has doubled in the last decade, while trade with Mexico has tripled during the same time frame. However, the facilities through which trade must flow have not been expanded or enhanced to keep pace with this traffic. A Congressionally mandated study called the ``Ports of Entry Infrastructure Assessment Study,'' completed over a year prior to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, identified a growing backlog of infrastructure needs at our Nation's border crossings. It specifically identified 822 infrastructure requirements with an estimated gross cost of $784 million. That report was completed 3 years ago last month--but Congress has yet to seriously begin to address this growing problem. Consistent with the Enhanced Border Security Act and legislation introduced in this body by a bipartisan group of Senators, this amendment provides $100 million for the new Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to begin addressing this backlog. The funds provided in this amendment could be used to replace the trailer--yes, the trailer--that serves as a border port-of-entry in Easton, ME, or to complete construction of the San Diego fence along the border with Mexico which was authorized by Congress in 1997. My amendment would also add $138.5 million to hire additional border protection staff to meet the levels authorized in the USA PATRIOT Act. While funding in the Committee bill will allow the Bureau for Customs and Border Protection, CBP, to succeed in meeting the Congressionally mandated staffing goal for the Border Patrol by the end of this fiscal year, the remaining components of this newly created bureau fall far short of meeting the authorized target. The PATRIOT Act authorizes a total of 4,845 legacy Customs, Immigration and Agriculture inspection personnel along the northern border by the end of fiscal year 2004. According to the CBP, it will fall far short of that goal. It estimates that it will only have 3,387 inspection personnel at the many port-of-entry and other facilities that stretch across the 5,525 mile northern border with Canada. This is 1,458 personnel short of the authorized and required level. My amendment would provide the $138.5 million estimated to complete the hiring initiative called for in the PATRIOT Act. The funds would be used to hire an additional 1,458 inspectors to: enhance our ability to conduct inspections of people and goods entering our country to ensure that the people entering the country are authorized to do so; to ensure that the products in the containers are indeed what they are claimed to be and that no dangerous foods, meats, or other products are brought into the country. Another key area of focus is air cargo security. Most Americans would be stunned to learn that, under the President's budget proposal, each airline passenger will be screened before boarding a plane. Each passenger's baggage will be screened before being loaded on a plane. But commercial cargo on that same plane is left unchecked. The amendment would add $100 million to the Transportation Security Administration's budget. The additional funds proposed in this amendment would accomplish some key immediate objectives while at the same time laying the ground work for a more comprehensive, multi-year plan. Of this amount, $70 million would be provided to immediately strengthen and expand a number of ongoing TSA activities while the remaining $30 million would be used to increase research, development and testing of screening technologies and other systems. The $70 million would be used for the following purposes: To immediately deploy personnel to the Customs and Border Protection's National Targeting Center to develop rules for targeting suspicious packages on passenger aircraft and, as resources are provided, all-cargo aircraft; to provide $20 million for approximately 125 inspectors to be devoted to cargo screening. These personnel would be trained to inspect cargo operations, but in keeping with TSA's Aviation Operations strategy to cross-train its personnel, they would be trained for additional duties in future fiscal years; to provide $15 million to advance by one-year the TSA plan to expand canine screening teams for limited cargo screening. These activities would be co-located at airports currently using TSA canine for screening of U.S. mail, and would work as a complement to EDS screening at smaller locations; to provide $25 million to fully deploy the ``known shipper'' and profiling programs for cargo being carried on passenger aircraft; to provide $5 million to update the risk and vulnerability assessments for cargo operations; to provide $5 million to launch immediately a pilot program to use explosive detection system, EDS, machines at select locations to screen cargo. The additional $30 million would be added to the currently budgeted $30 million in TSA's research and development account for air cargo activities, doubling the total amount available for research and development within the air cargo pilot program. Finally, my amendment provides $80 million to begin addressing the issue of physical security at chemical facilities. Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution has called the lack of security at U.S. chemical plants a ``ticking time-bomb.'' The General Accounting Office has reported that chemical plants remain vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency, the GAO noted that 123 chemical facilities across the country, if attacked, could inflict serious damage and expose millions of people to toxic chemicals and gases. There are 3,000 chemical facilities in 49 States that, if attacked, could affect more than 10,000 people each. The General Accounting Office found that the Federal Government has not comprehensively assessed the chemical industry's vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks, nor has the Federal Government adequately addressed our nuclear vulnerabilities. The Homeland Security Department is responsible for carrying out comprehensive assessments of the vulnerabilities of the key resources and critical infrastructure of the United States. The President's National Strategy for Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets identifies chemical plants as part of the Nation's critical infrastructure. We are talking about chemical plants. Unfortunately, this administration has paid lipservice to the issue by saying that the Homeland Security Department will take the lead in managing vulnerability assessments of U.S. chemical facilities, but--b- u-t--no funding is identified in this budget to do just that. When I asked Secretary Ridge who was responsible to secure these facilities, he testified that he thought that securing chemical facilities was the responsibility of the chemical industry. Frankly, I do not believe our communities would be satisfied to wait for the administration to wake up to this danger. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that it will cost $80 million to conduct vulnerability assessments for chemical plants. This amendment I have offered would provide those resources. Protecting this Nation's communities is not easy. Protecting this Nations communities is not cheap. And protecting this Nation's communities cannot wait. After 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act, the Maritime Transportation Security Act, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act and the President signed all of these with great fanfare. But the President has done little to fulfill the promise of those laws. Now the Senate has before it the funding legislation that will either fulfill the promise of those acts or continue to leave the Nation vulnerable. We will hear the same old mantra in opposition to this amendment that money cannot possibly solve the problems facing homeland security. I agree that money cannot solve all of our problems but if we fail to invest sufficient funds, if we fail in the effort to protect our people as best we can, we will never even begin to address them. The gaps in our protections and preparations will continue to grow. We all know these caps exist. And, to be sure, if we know where those gaps are, so do the terrorists know where those gaps are. The American people believe that we here in Washington are taking care of the problem. We must make every effort to close those gaps. In just a few weeks, America will pause to remember the second anniversary of the moments when the airplanes struck the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania field. We again will remember the mothers and fathers, the brothers and sisters, the firefighters, the police officers, the ambulance drivers. We will remember all of those who lost their lives in those tragic moments. And we should remember those who saved our lives when they sent that plane into the Pennsylvania fields. But as we remember the lives of all these, we owe them more than high-sounding rhetoric. We owe them our best judgment. We owe them rational, responsible action. We owe them a legacy that may truly save lives and prevent another terrorist attack from happening. I urge all Members to be mindful of their solemn duty to ``provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity'' as we debate this important legislation. I have gone to considerable lengths to speak concerning my amendment. I urge Senators to support the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that certain Senators have their names added as cosponsors: Senators Lieberman, Cantwell, and Stabenow.

Mr. BYRD. And I welcome the cosponsorship of other Senators--all Senators for that matter. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senator Cochran has said there is no end to the list of homeland security needs. He is absolutely correct on that. We could list these security needs from now until Kingdom come. Additional needs can be found. So he is correct. But that does not mean the amendment I have offered is excessive. It does not mean the amendment is excessive. It is targeted to specific activities that Congress has approved. As I said in the beginning, I named several pieces of legislation that have been approved and signed into law by the President, some of them with great fanfare. So Congress has approved these acts, and the President has signed them into law. The chairman is correct in stating the progress we have made in hiring Border Patrol agents and inspectors. But that leaves us nearly 1,500 inspectors short of the goal established in the PATRIOT Act. The President signed that law. Are we serious or are we not serious about meeting the goals set forth in these acts? My amendment would provide the resources to meet the goals that have been set forth in the acts by Congress, the acts that have been signed by the President. It has also been noted that the bill already includes $150 million for port security grants. But the Coast Guard has estimated that it will cost $1.1 billion in just the first year for the ports to implement the security plan that the Coast Guard issued on July 1, pursuant to the Maritime Transportation Security Act. Who signed that act? The President signed it. Who issued the regulations? The Coast Guard. Are they serious or not about port security? Is the President serious? The amendment would result in less than $1 billion of total funding. This is less than the Coast Guard's $1.1 billion estimate. Our distinguished chairman has said he tried to include a base level of funding for grants to equip and train our police, fire, and medical personnel. And I compliment the chairman. He has done a masterful job in writing the provisions in the bill we have before us, a masterful job in distributing the limited amounts that have been provided to the chairman and to the committee for distribution. He has sought to exercise good judgment. He has done so--with the limitations. The problem is, we do not have enough funds to appropriately allocate to meet the needs of the country. But I do not believe that establishing a base level of funding is enough. When a nonpartisan organization such as the Council on Foreign Relations estimates a $98 billion shortfall over the next 5 years, I simply cannot understand why the committee funding level is enough. It is $434 million below the level available in fiscal year 2003. With regard to funding chemical facilities security, the chairman notes there is significant funding in the bill for securing critical infrastructure. Yet, nearly 2 years after 9/11, we have no details-- none--from the administration describing how these funds would be used. Secretary Ridge testified to the subcommittee that he believes that securing chemical facilities is the responsibility of the chemical industry. I do not believe we should continue to wait for the administration to get its act together. We should not allow the budget resolution to artificially limit our ability to address known vulnerabilities in this country. Our citizens do not know about budget resolutions. Our citizens do not know about 302(b) allocations. But they do know they feel vulnerable to terrorist attacks that Secretary Ridge has said are inevitable. Mr. President, the full committee conducted careful and extensive hearings last year. We had seven Department heads here before the committee. The committee membership was there. The committee hearings were well attended. Senator Stevens and I carefully selected witnesses to appear before those hearings. There were Governors who appeared. There were mayors who appeared. There were members of county commissions who appeared. First responders appeared. Firemen, policemen, health personnel appeared at those hearings. And we have gone over those hearings carefully. The staff has gone over those hearings and painstakingly gleaned from the rich testimony that was submitted by these public officials and public servants. Based on those and subsequent hearings, we decided that these are needs that ought to be addressed. And so I have tried to address these needs in the amendment. As I say, the amendment adds $1.75 billion. That would fund 42 hours of the Defense Department expenditures. The Defense Department will be spending $1 billion a day on the military--$1 billion a day. They are spending a billion dollars a week in Iraq. Why can't we spend $1.75 billion on the protection of our own people, and our industries here, the protection of our own infrastructure; $1.75 billion to defend the American people, to defend our infrastructure, to defend our ports, to meet the needs of our ports, $1.75 billion? We spend a $1 billion every 24 hours on our defense budget. Yet when it comes to defending this country, defending its infrastructure, then we say it is too much. I hope Senators will support the motion to waive the point of order. As I close my remarks at this point, I thank the distinguished chairman for his characteristic courtesy and also for his proficiency, his professional handling of this bill and the hearings. He attended the hearings, started them on time, and asked incisive questions. He is always fair to those on the minority side. I have nothing but praise for him. And I thank the cosponsors of the amendment. I must state again, however, that I feel the need for adding appropriations as I am attempting to do here. A stitch in time saves nine. There is no question in my mind but that we are underfunding the homeland security needs. The Senator has done the best he could with the limited amount of moneys, but there is no good reason why we can't add moneys to this bill. We have to overcome the point of order, of course. There is a 60-vote point of order. That is difficult. But Senators may come to rejoice in having voted for this amendment. Who knows? I see the distinguished Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, and I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, for their excellent statements. I thank them for supporting the amendment. I hope the Senate will vote to waive the point of order.

Mr. BYRD. I agree this is important and timely funding for one of the many needs facing our Nation as we deal with terrorist threats.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I understand this project is in development in Nevada. I encourage the Department to consider using a portion of the $13 million appropriated for hazardous materials tracking to help initiate the development of this project.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to thank the very distinguished Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, on the ringing defense of the provisions that are set forth in the amendment that I and several other Senators are cosponsoring. I do not think any Senator could come to this floor with better credentials than those of the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton. She represents the State and the city that was the hardest hit by the terrorist attacks on 9/11. There is only one other State and one other jurisdiction that suffered, but she has made an extraordinary plea coming from the experiences that she has suffered as a result of 9/11. I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, and she came to my office not once, not twice, not three times but many times in support of the appropriations that the Senate was considering and that the Senate finally enacted. She had a great impact on me as we sat and talked and as I listened to her recount the problems of her city, the problems of New York City and of New York State that resulted from those attacks. So I thank her for her support of the amendment and say that no one in the Senate could have made a finer statement in support, and no one in the Senate would better understand the needs the American people have as we try to prepare against any future terrorist attacks. I thank her and her staff for the excellent effort they have put into this matter. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Let me express my appreciation to the Senator for his support of the amendment; more than that, for his steadfast support of the appropriations as we have dealt with this problem time and again on the floor. The Senator, as is Senator Clinton, is a member of the Armed Services Committee, and his support for this amendment tells a lot. Here is the support of two Senators on the Armed Services Committee. They have been on there quite a while. They have seniority. The Senator from Rhode Island is an outstanding member of the committee. I deeply appreciate his support of this amendment. I appreciate his patriotism and his eloquence and support of preparing this country against such attacks as it was subjected to on September 11, 2001.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I realize this is not debatable. I shall shortly move to waive the point of order, which will be debatable, not that I intend to take long in debating it. But if the Chair will indulge me momentarily, I want to thank Senator Dodd for his very forceful and cogent and persuasive statement in support of the amendment. He is extremely eloquent. He intends to follow up this statement after a little while with an amendment of his own. But I thank him profusely, without being profuse, for an excellent, excellent statement. I believe his perspicacity will be rewarded in time. I believe it will be. I know the American people are better off for having him in the Senate and for the support he has given to this amendment. I hope the Senate will prevail in support of the statement of the Senator from Connecticut. Now, Mr. President, 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. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, while Senator Nelson is coming to the floor, let me just remind my colleagues that I offered an amendment last January to add $5 billion to the omnibus appropriations bill for 2003 for homeland security programs such as port security, nuclear security, airport security, and first responders. The White House labeled the amendment as extraneous spending and the amendment was defeated. So what happened? Ten weeks later, the White House requested a $4.4 billion supplemental. And a month later, Congress approved $5.1 billion of supplemental homeland security funding. So the White House was a day late and several hundred million dollars short. All the White House accomplished was the delay of critical homeland security investments for 3 months. That was a repeat of the same old tune we heard from the White House at the time Senator Stevens and I wrote a letter to the White House and to Secretary Ridge urging that there be more money for homeland security. Secretary Ridge responded with a letter to Senator Stevens and to me saying that the White House believed that our amendment was extraneous for the moment and that the White House would be submitting its own request in due time. So it seems that whenever we have attempted to offer legislation to protect our own country, to protect the people of the country, to protect the infrastructure of the country, to protect the industries of the country from attack, the administration always says it does not need these moneys and that in due time it will submit its own request. And so that seems to be the record today. Today we are debating an amendment to add just $1.75 billion for homeland security. And the majority, speaking for the administration, says the amendment is too large. Mr. President, history has a way of repeating itself. The Senate should approve this amendment today. The Senate should not wait for the White House to recognize real homeland security vulnerabilities. Delay does not make the Nation more secure. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my remarks of December 9, 2002, before the U.S. Capitol Historical Society.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today the Senate takes up H.R. 2555, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill. This is the first homeland security appropriations bill in the history of the Nation. The Senate Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee was created just 4 months ago. Under the able leadership of Chairman Cochran, the subcommittee held six hearings to review the operations of the Department of Homeland Security. I commend Chairman Cochran and his staff for their work on this important legislation. The bill provides discretionary budget authority totaling $28.521 billion, a level that is $1.039 billion above the President's request. The bill is at the level available under the 302(b) allocation. Regrettably, the allocation 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. Unfortunately, the budget resolution that passed this Congress limited discretionary spending to levels below the President's already inadequate request. The budget resolution severely constrains our ability to address known threats to the safety of the American people. With the Department of Homeland Security regularly changing the terrorist level from elevated to high and back, and with the Secretary saying publicly that another terrorist attack is inevitable, the demands for homeland security spending seem endless. Our job on the Appropriations Committee is to make careful choices. Unfortunately, the budget resolution has forced us to exclude from the bill some funding that both the Congress and the President have recognized as being real needs. All Americans, whether they live in rural communities or major cities, want to know that if there is a terrorist attack close to their homes, their local doctors and nurses have the training to treat the injured. Americans want to know that their local firemen have the ability and the equipment to handle a chemical or biological attack. Americans want to know that their local police officers are trained in identifying and responding to the variety of terrorist attacks that we could now face. Regrettably, this bill, while providing first responder funding at a level that is $303 million over the President's request, is $434 million below the level that the Congress approved for the current fiscal year. The Federal Government needs to remain a full partner in local homeland defense efforts and adequate funding is essential to that task. According to the Secretary of Defense, the United States is spending $3.9 billion per month for the war in Iraq. Yet this bill includes only $3.9 billion for the entire year for equipping and training our first responders. Frankly, I believe that the President and the administration have lost their focus on what really matters to American citizens; namely, the combating of terrorism and securing the homeland. One of the mysteries about the President's budget is the budget for the Transportation Security Administration or TSA. TSA was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 and was supposed to focus on securing all modes of transportation. Yet the President's budget includes only $86 million or 2 percent of the TSA budget for maritime and land security. Yet the President's budget includes only $86 million. The rest of the President's budget request is for aviation security and for administration. What about securing our ports? What about securing our trains? What about securing our subways and our railway tunnels? What about securing our buses, or securing the trucks that carry hazardous materials? In fact, the President's budget requests 2.5 times more for administering the Transportation Security Administration bureaucracy than the President does for securing the Nation's ports, trains, trucks, and buses. I commend Chairman Thad Cochran for recognizing this problem and for addressing some of these weaknesses. But he simply did not have the resources available to him to deal with several well-known vulnerabilities. For example, in November of 2002, President Bush signed the Maritime Transportation Security Act which established new standards for securing our Nation's ports. Despite the fact that the Coast Guard had estimated it will cost the ports $5.4 billion over 10 years to implement those standards, including $1.1 billion the first year, the President did not request a dime for port security. The bill that is before the Senate includes $150 million for port security grants, and I commend Chairman Cochran for finding the resources within the limited allocation for this important program. I hope we can do more to secure our ports. In October of 2001, the President signed the Patriot Act, which called for tripling the number of Border Patrol agents and Customs and immigration inspectors on the northern border. In May of 2002, the President signed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, which authorized significant new investments in Border Patrol agents and facilities. The goals with regard to Customs inspectors and border facilities cannot be met with the limited funding that was made available for discretionary programs under the budget resolution. Under the President's proposal for the Transportation Security Administration, there is a significant gap in securing commercial airlines. Under the proposal, each airline passenger is screened before he or she gets on a plane, and each passenger's baggage would be screened before being loaded on a plane. But commercial cargo on that same plane would be left unchecked. That is a dangerous security risk that needs to be addressed. This bill adds $30 million to the budget request to research, develop, and deploy air cargo security programs to enhance the secure transport of cargo on commercial airlines. I believe we need to do more to secure cargo on our commercial airlines. However, with the funds that were made available to the subcommittee under our allocation, I believe Chairman Cochran has produced a good bill. It is balanced. It is fair. It addresses a number of weaknesses in the President's budget request that we identified during our committee hearing. We increased funding over the President's request to equip and train our first responders. We continue to fund effective programs such as the Fire Grants Program and the All Hazards Emergency Management Performance Grants Program, which the President had proposed to consolidate into a single grant program. We increased funding for our airports to purchase explosives detection equipment and to install that equipment. We increased funding over the President's request for the Coast Guard in order to keep the Deep Water Air and Sea Modernization Program on schedule. We recognize that not all transportation security vulnerabilities are at our airports. We also fund grants for port security, bus security, and for securing hazardous materials. Additionally, this legislation takes an important step to protect personal privacy. The bill delays for 60 days the expenditure of funds on implementing the Department's proposed new Airline Passenger Profiling System--CAPPS II--until the General Accounting Office conducts a study and reports to the Congress on the privacy implications of the system. We must make sure that the privacy rights of individuals are protected and that individuals who are determined to pose a threat to security have an appeal mechanism. This is a good bill, but we must address several critical shortfalls that result from the budget resolution that put tax cuts at the front of the line and left homeland security to compete with every other Federal program for limited dollars. The result, regrettably, is a homeland security budget that leaves gaps in our security by leaving priority programs underfunded. After 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act, the Maritime Transportation Security Act, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. And the President signed them with great fanfare. But the President has done little to fulfill the promise of those laws. Now the Senate has before it the funding legislation that would either fulfill the promise of those acts or continue to leave the Nation and its citizens vulnerable. I urge all Members to be mindful of the solemn duty to ``provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity'' as we debate this important appropriations bill. Amendment No. 1317 (Purpose: Fulfilling Homeland Security Promises) Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment for discussion and action, not this afternoon but tomorrow or subsequently.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that committee staff Alexa Sewell and Scott Nance and fellows on the staff of the Committee on Appropriations Peter Edge and Cynthia Stowe be granted the privileges of the floor during debate and rollcall votes on the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security appropriations bill and the conference report thereon.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. The Congress, apparently, is expected to just go along and hear all this talk about the ``Commander in Chief,'' and not dare to raise a head to ask a question. You are not supposed to ask questions. You are supposed to put the money down. And that is the way we did it last year. The troops are there and by the time we got around to considering the supplemental appropriation bill, they had already spent several billion dollars, between $30 and $40 billion or some such-- already spent. So we have to pay the bills. That is already spent. We have to do that.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.