Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. Go ahead.

Mr. BYRD. He is citing a statement of a Deputy Director of Homeland Security; is that it?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield my remaining time to myself. In this new world, we face a new kind of war--a war on our shores, a war that is different in scope and intensity from any that we have ever faced before. The enemy is no organized army. There is no organized army of infantry, or artillery. The enemy is not an organized army with maps and bayonets. The enemy follows no rules of engagement. The enemy heeds no Geneva Convention. Their weapon is fear. Their application is destruction. We cannot stand idly by and put our total faith in some new bureaucracy. We ought not be lulled into complacency that the hope of a new government department may eventually make us safer. This Congress has the responsibility to protect the American people. That responsibility lies here as well as downtown in the executive branch. This Congress has the responsibility to protect the American people. This Congress has the responsibility to invest the dollars where they are most needed and to focus on the Nation's many serious vulnerabilities. But by blindly supporting the arbitrary figures that are undermining the package before this Senate, we take a dangerous gamble with the lives of the American people. And we do not have that right. We do not have the right to take that danger and gamble with the American people. The White House does not have that right. The President of the United States does not have that right. Let him come before the cameras of the electronic eye. Let him say to the American people that you are secure and you don't need more money; that we don't need to spend another dollar; and that we don't need to spend any more than we have. I can be mistaken, and I am often mistaken. I don't maintain that I am always right. But I maintain that we have a duty to protect our people. I maintain that in the Appropriations Committee we conducted hearings--lengthy hearings. We heard from administration witnesses. We heard from the people at the local level. We heard from mayors. We heard from Governors. This Appropriations Committee, when I was in charge, unanimously voted out these bills appropriating moneys. Time and time again, this administration turned the back of its hand to the Congress and in so doing to the American people because the people in the Congress are the elected representatives of the American people. The people in the Congress are the elected representatives of those taxpayers out there who send us here. We don't come here at the bidding of any President. No President can say when I have to go home or when I can come to this place. The people of West Virginia determined that, and they are my bosses. No President is infallible. But this administration, more than any administration that I have seen in my 50 years in Congress, maintains that it is right; that it is always right; that Congress is wrong, always wrong. We are coming to some very difficult showdowns in this country. Who knows what may happen in the days ahead? This legislation would cut investments in homeland security. I appreciate the work and the effort Senator Stevens and his staff have put into this package given the arbitrary constraints placed on them by the White House. But the Senate should not allow itself to be handcuffed by the political advisers inside the White House. Who are they? To whom do they answer? They answer to the President of the United States, I guess. They do not answer to the American people. We should not accept the hundreds of miles of our northern and southern borders remaining unguarded. We should not accept the alarming deficiencies in our seaport security, an area that many experts have identified as perhaps the Nation's single greatest vulnerability. We should not accept the fact that first responders and local doctors and nurses do not have sufficient training and equipment to handle wide- ranging threats involving madmen who may have gotten their hands on weapons of mass destruction. This Senator from West Virginia is not now nor will he ever be prepared to accept those dangers. This Senator is prepared to do whatever it takes to close the gaps and to protect the American people. I urge my colleagues to join me. Since September 11, 2001, the threat of a terrorist attack has only increased. It has not decreased. Administration officials have said time and time again that another terrorist attack will happen. It is inevitable, they say, and it could involve weapons of mass destruction. Last September, the administration raised its terrorist alert system to its second highest level and closed nine embassies for security reasons. Last October, the FBI warned of terrorist attacks against railroads. Last November, the FBI warned hospitals in Houston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington of an imminent terrorist attack. The CIA director warned of terrorist dangers, and testified that once war begins in Iraq--hear me now, hear me--the CIA director warned of terrorist dangers and testified that once war begins in Iraq, Islamic extremists will likely increase their effort to attack us here at home. It is not to be a video game. Oh, praise God that we will be lucky. We could be. I hope we will be. Last December, the administration reported that Islamic extremists associated with al-Qaida may have taken possession of chemical weapons. Canadian intelligence told us that al-Qaida was plotting attacks from Canada. An increasing number of terrorist warnings threats to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us, a war with Iraq that could escalate the threat level, yet this Congress and this President process all of that information and conclude that the best place to find savings is in the funding for homeland security funds. That is simply astonishing. Our borders remain dangerously unguarded. They leak like a sieve. We don't know if terrorists have crossed into the country, as we saw over the New Year's holiday, when the FBI was frantically looking for suspected terrorists. Do you remember that? They were frantically-- frantically--looking for suspected terrorists who they later concluded had not entered the country after all. Yet this administration wants to cut border security funding by $705 million. The Customs Service is able to inspect only 2 percent--at most, 5 percent--of cargo entering this country. We know terrorists could smuggle weapons of mass destruction into our ports, either to blow them up and cause massive economic and physical destruction or to explode those weapons within the interior of the country near a major city. Yet this Bush administration wants to cut port security funding by tens of millions of dollars. Astonishing? Yes, astonishing. The FBI lacks the law enforcement personnel to track potential terrorists and disrupt potential terrorist cells already based inside this country. Yet this White House--this White House--the Bush administration wants to cut money for Federal law enforcement personnel by more than $250 million. Irresponsible? Yes, irresponsible. The President has suggested that a smallpox attack is a big enough risk to the American public that a smallpox vaccine should be made available to the public by the beginning of 2004. Yet this President knows that State and local governments lack the necessary funding to administer the smallpox vaccination plan, let alone provide for the homeland security protections for which the State and local governments are responsible. Never mind. This administration wants to cut aid to the States by more than $500 million. Our nuclear facilities remain dangerously exposed. Yet this White House, this administration, seeks to cut funding to protect our nuclear facilities by more than $230 million. Airport security, mass transit security, cybersecurity, water security, embassy security, food safety--these are all critical vulnerabilities and yet the administration wants to whack those moneys by a total of $1.5 billion. Then, on top of all of those reductions, this bill has an across-the- board cut of 1.6 percent for each and every Federal law enforcement and homeland security initiative across this country. It is a shameful way--a shameful way--to fund the protection of this Nation. Sound policy decisions cannot possibly be driving these spending cuts. Clearly, these programs need more money, not less. The administration cannot blame these decisions on growing budget deficits because that same administration now argues that deficits don't matter. It is politics. The administration chose an arbitrary number last year, and it is twisting the arms of the Congress to stick to it. The result is a disaster for homeland security programs. While our troops overseas are equipped with high-tech gadgets to fight our enemies, our troops left at home will have to defend us with meager resources. Our troops in the desert are bouncing their communications off satellites, while our homeland defenders may have to communicate with twine and coffee cans. This may sound ridiculous, but it is much closer to the truth than many of us would like to believe. When it comes to fighting overseas, this administration's attitude is: Spare no expense. There is no pricetag on freedom. But when it comes to fighting the war here at home, this White House, this administration, prefers to shop in bargain basements. Delays of this funding for a few months, until the next fiscal year's appropriations bills, translates into more than a calendar year. By waiting for the next fiscal year, we would force first responders to wait for help until the calendar year 2004. By waiting for the next fiscal year, we force our airports and our seaports to struggle with security until the calendar year 2004. These delays do not serve any constructive purpose, and they certainly do not help to protect American lives. If we provide these moneys, the oversight committees should do their job to ensure that the agencies invest these dollars quickly and effectively. The amendment I have proposed would invest funds where they are most needed. First, it would restore the $1 billion in reductions in homeland security initiatives made from the original committee-passed appropriations bills and for which every member of the Appropriations Committee voted. Second, it would restore much of the $2.5 billion in emergency homeland security funds that passed this Congress overwhelmingly in the summer but was vetoed by this White House. Finally, this amendment would fund the priorities that Congress has found so necessary and that President Bush has already signed into law. This amendment would fund the border security authorization bill that passed the Senate 97 to 0 and that the President signed last May. This amendment would fund the port security authorization bill that passed the Senate 95 to 0 and that the President signed into law last November. This amendment would provide funds--hear me now--this amendment would provide funds for the 10 million smallpox vaccinations that this administration has mandated from State and local health professionals. These dollars address our most critical needs, Mr. President. These funds would help to shore up our defenses and could save lives here at home. We are in new and dangerous times. No attack should be deemed so unlikely that it can be ignored. The men and women who send us here demand that we protect them, that we protect our country first. The fathers and mothers who send their children to school each morning expect us to invest the dollars to keep their little precious ones safe. That is a solemn duty that lies on the conscience of every man and woman Member of this body. It is a basic and sacred duty. And may God forgive us if we so cavalierly fail in our duty to protect our people, the American people.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I make another plea to my colleagues, and I speak on behalf of the American people in doing so because it is their security I am talking about. By all let this be heard, by Democrats as well as Republicans. I make this last plea to my colleagues with respect to homeland security. If they will not allow the Government to invest $5 billion to protect the lives of the American people from terrorist attacks, at least let us invest in the most obviously vulnerable segments of our infrastructure. Now listen to me, colleagues. You are going to have to answer to the American people for your vote. Democrats are going to have to answer for their votes. Republicans are going to have to answer for their votes. You may say, well, I am ready. That is all right. You be ready. You be ready. And the record will follow you. The record will follow you. You cannot nonchalantly say: Well, we had a caucus and we decided we would have a party-line vote; we would stand against Senator Byrd's amendment and we would oppose all amendments, et cetera, et cetera--if that is the case. That may be OK here, but wait until the American people look at the record. It was their safety that you are compromising when you voted against this past amendment. I am surprised that we had any votes at all, at least from this side of the aisle, against that amendment. But every Senator has to answer to his own conscience and to his own people. I respect that on any Senator's part. I will send up an amendment in due time, and I understand the time is limited on this amendment whether I send it up or not, so that is understood to start with. In the past year and a half, this Senate, and indeed the entire Congress, have voted overwhelmingly for authorization bills that commit funds for the protection of the American people. This Senate and the entire Congress have voted overwhelmingly for authorization bills that commit funds for the protection of the American people. In November 2001, this Senate, by a 100-to-0 vote, approved the Federal Aviation Security Act: a vote of 100 to 0. The President signed this legislation amid great fanfare--how sweet it is. Oh, it was great to pass the legislation. But despite the high-toned rhetoric, the resources to implement this act have been denied. Last May the Senate passed the U.S. Border Security Act under an array of great speeches, noteworthy speeches. Oh, the speeches, I can hear them yet. I can hear the reverberation of those stentorian tones-- the reverberations around this great Chamber and outside the Chamber as well, and other places. The border security bill passed the Senate 97 to nothing, and the President very accommodatingly and happily signed that legislation into law. So with a flourish of the pen it became law, a flourish of the pen in the mighty hand of the chief magistrate of this country, a great flourish of the pen. Headlines in the newspaper, excellent paragraphs as to the comments that were made, worthy of keeping in our scrapbooks, may I say. And then this past November, by a vote of 95 to 0 again--95 to zero? Where was the opposition then? A vote of 95 to zero the Senate passed the Port and Maritime Security Act, giving approval for massive investments at the Nation's seaports. And, again, the Commander in Chief--if I may use that term, if I may pluck that term out of the Constitution--the Commander in Chief signed the bill into law. Despite these overwhelming bipartisan votes, despite the stentorian rhetoric that came from many voices that spoke as though they had lungs of brass, despite that great rhetoric that accompanied the signing of these bills, the resources have been slow in coming, to say the least. As a result, our Nation's defenses against terrorist attack have remained vulnerable--vulnerable. You better ponder that word. I have seen more than 85 summers. More than 85 years have passed; 50 of those 85 years have been spent in the Congress of the United States. Never have I seen a Congress that has been more recreant in its duty to stand up against an executive branch that looks with utter contempt on the elected Representatives of the people in this, the legislative branch. People downtown, many of them it seems, feel that the legislative branch is beneath the dignity of the executive branch. They have nothing but contempt for this branch. So when this branch comes forward with recommendations as to what is needed to ensure the people's security, the executive branch turns the back of its hand to the recommendations of the legislative branch. And it has done that repeatedly, time after time, over the past year. The fact of the matter is that the Senate Appropriations Committee in the 107th Congress did its work. It passed all 13 appropriations bills. It did so responsibly. It did so in a bipartisan fashion, in a fashion that was remarkably bipartisan. What we have before us is not merely the last year's committee-passed bills for fiscal 2003 with a nip here and a tuck there to address new budgetary circumstances. The bills that are now before us are shaped around policy completely divorced from reality. Mr. President, the Chamber is empty. I, too, would like to be sitting somewhere. It is not easy. It is not easy to make this fight. But who cares whether it is easy or not. That is not important. I will give the last vestige of my strength to stand and speak on behalf of the security of the American people. I am putting this amendment before the Senate today, and I am asking Senators to carefully weigh the amendment on behalf of the American people. It is not easy. But never was I more willing to expend my limited energies and my frail voice on behalf of the safety of the American people than I am here today. I know that what I am saying will fall upon deaf ears in some quarters. But the bill before us now, let me say again, was shaped around sound policy that is completely divorced from reality. If we are to be treated to speeches touting what this administration can do when it controls the Congress, perhaps we should take a close look. The most telling example of what we are in for is demonstrated in how these appropriations bills treat domestic security. Just yesterday, two distinguished Members of this body, the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and the senior Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, released a report from the General Accounting Office that examined the vulnerabilities in the Nation's air cargo system. Let me say that again. Two distinguished Members of this body on yesterday, the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and the senior Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, released a report from the General Accounting Office that examined the vulnerabilities in the Nation's air cargo system. The GAO found that while 22 percent of the Nation's air cargo is sent on passenger aircraft, very little of that cargo is ever inspected. Listen to that. How many Senators have ridden on cargo planes? I have. Does it make one pause to reflect upon the fact that so little of that air cargo is ever inspected? Your life and the lives of others who ride those cargo planes are in the hands of God. He isn't getting much help from this administration, and He isn't getting much help from the Congress of the United States as reflected by this last vote, for example. The GAO found that while 22 percent of the Nation's air cargo is sent on passenger aircraft, very little of that cargo is ever inspected. The GAO reported that: First, there are simply not enough safeguards in place to ensure that someone shipping air cargo under the existing protocols has taken the proper steps to protect against the use of that shipment by terrorists. Second, cargo tampering is possible at various points where shipments transfer from company to company. Third, air cargo handlers are not required to have criminal background checks and do not always have their identities verified. Fourth, most cargo shipped by air is never screened. How many more attacks, how many more warnings, how many more reports will it take before this Congress awakens, before it believes that this Nation is seriously at risk? Instead of simply paying lipservice to the many vulnerabilities in this Nation, it is time to invest real resources to protect the American people from terrorist attack. We cannot nickel and dime the protections of American lives. Think of your own. National security requires national investments. We hear that freedom has no price. The same can be said of safety--the safety of the American people. The safety of the American people should have no pricetag. The lessons from September 11, 2001, are clear--as clear as the noonday Sun on a cloudless sky. Terrorists live among us, and they traverse our open borders with relative ease. We know that the enemy prefers weapons fashioned from the ordinary infrastructure of modern life--trucks, trains, planes, mail delivery, envelopes in the mail, ports, energy sources, cyberspace, spent nuclear materials, and one can go on and on. All of these, we are told, can be easily adapted to cause death, sudden death and destruction, fear and panic. At home, our technology is deficient, with outdated computers in key government agencies unable to easily transmit vital information back and forth. Last April and May, in 5 days of hearings, the Senate Appropriations Committee heard testimony that indicated our adversaries could cripple the U.S. economy without great difficulty and without enormous cost. It can be done on the cheap. The warnings have been prolific. The warnings that have come down from the various agencies of this administration have made it clear time and again that we are at great risk. This country is at great risk. With these warnings in mind and with the realization of the many gaps in our homeland security network, the men and the women of this Congress are playing Russian roulette with the safety of our people unless we take immediate steps to protect American lives and to avoid future tragedies. I could go on and on. But Senators already know where we are vulnerable--border security, airport security, port security. We are well aware of the gaps in our protections. If we know where those gaps are--if we know where those gaps are--you can be sure that the terrorists know where those gaps are. Further delay is unconscionable. Further delay on the part of the elected representatives of the American people is unconscionable. This is not a time for politics. We may think we can play politics. But this is not something with which we can play politics. Further delay is unconscionable. That is why I offer an amendment that is smaller in scope and more narrowly defined than the one that was just considered by the Senate and defeated by the Senate. This amendment, which I shall shortly send to the desk, would fund the core mandates of the authorization bills which the Congress last approved and the President of the United States has signed into law. What are they? The Airport Security Act, the Border Security Act, the Seaport Security Act. Let us match the rhetoric with resources. Let us fulfill the promises that we made to provide the necessary funds when we voted for and last passed those authorization bills and when they were signed. I urge Senators to expedite this much needed assistance for our Nation. We must not turn our backs on the efforts to bolster our weaknesses, on the effort to address our vulnerabilities, on the effort to protect American lives, the lives we say may be our own. Now, the amendment which I am going to send to the desk shortly, I shall explain. This is the summary of the amendment. This amendment provides $500 million for aviation security--get that, $500 million for aviation security--to implement the law signed by President Bush in November of 2001. The amendment directs $750 million for border security to implement the law signed by President Bush in May 2002. The amendment invests $500 million for seaport security to implement the law signed by President Bush in November 2002. The amendment provides $850 million to State and local health professionals to implement the President's announced plan from December 2002 to vaccinate 10 million first responders and health care workers against smallpox. Are you going to vote against that? This is your President. This is my President. This is our President. Are you going to vote against that? Let me say it again, lest you did not hear. This amendment provides $850 million to State and local health professionals to implement the President's announced plan to vaccinate 10 million first responders and health care workers against smallpox. The President mandated that the States--including West Virginia, including New York, including California, including Alaska, including Washington, including Texas, including Florida--and local governments carry out this vaccination plan but provided no financial support to implement it. Let me say that again. The President mandated that the States and local governments carry out this vaccination plan--we are talking about a plan to vaccinate responders, local responders, and health care workers against smallpox--the President mandated that the States and local governments carry out this vaccination plan but provided no financial support to implement it. This amendment directs $200 million for law enforcement agencies and other first responders to address the communications conflicts that exist in their current radio systems. How many times have we heard that the local responders--the fire department people, the law enforcement personnel--could not talk with one another? Law enforcement could not talk with firefighters. Firefighters could not talk with emergency health personnel. How many times have we heard that? How many times did we hear it during the course of those hearings last year in which both parties worked together, in a bipartisan fashion, to have the hearings, to shape the hearings, to determine who would be called, and to pass the legislation implementing the requests of the people from the local levels--the mayors, the Governors, the first responders? So I say again, the amendment directs $200 million for law enforcement agencies and other first responders to address the communications conflicts that exist in their current radio systems. The amendment invests $200 million for nuclear security to protect against theft of nuclear materials and to provide increased security at nuclear facilities. Did we hear Sam Nunn? Did we hear former Senator Sam Nunn when he appeared before the Appropriations Committee in last year's hearings? Did we listen to former Senator Rudman when he appeared there before the Senate Appropriations Committee in those hearings? Senator Nunn, working with Senator Lugar, addressed these problems. And they continue to be very concerned about the problems involved in nuclear security. This amendment invests $200 million for nuclear security to protect against theft of nuclear material and to provide security at nuclear facilities. Now, Mr. President, that is all I shall have to say. I send the amendment to the desk, and I ask that it be read in its entirety so that all Senators will hear it today, not wait until tomorrow to read it in the Congressional Record.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield? Does the Senator still have time?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I say to the leader, how long ago was it we heard the President of the United States saying, no price is too great a price to pay for freedom? Right? When they talk about war in Afghanistan, they talk about war in Iraq, no price is too great a price to pay. Where are those voices now from the administration? Where are the voices that say no amount of money is too much to pay? What about this? What amount of money is too much to pay for homeland security? Who knows but when the first shot ricochets in the war against Iraq--which Congress is not declaring--when that first shot is fired, is it possible we may hear some shots fired in our own country; that we may see the terrorists come out of hiding; we may see them come from the veil; we may see them come forward? What will happen then? What will happen then to this Capitol? What saved this Capitol from being demolished on September 11? A few brave men and women on that plane that went down in Pennsylvania saved this Capitol. Who is to say that these terrorists--we don't have them among us now? Who can say there are not terrorists out here now, waiting, just waiting, waiting for the moment? And here the people downtown, when it comes to homeland security, when it comes to the protection of our homeland, when it comes to the protection of our families, when it comes to the protection of our churches, our schools, our stores, our jobs--aha, $5 billion is too much to pay, too much to pay; we don't need it. If you don't need it, don't spend it, and let's have some hearings as to why it isn't spent. No price is too much to pay. No price is too much to pay for the security of this great land of ours. I thank the distinguished leader.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. President, I have listened to my distinguished friend, and he is my friend, but remember that my friend from Alaska said in December a year ago: Now, 4 months have already passed. We have 8 months. Let's wait until 2003. We have already gone through 4 months. Let's wait until 2003. Now we are hearing the same argument, may I say, from my dear friend: Let's wait until 2004. We cannot wait. The distinguished chairman refers to the fact that the President will not like this either. Well, I accord this President the same respect I accord any other President. This President is not infallible, nor is any other President we have ever had. The problem with what I see in this administration is they want to have it their way with every comma, semicolon, colon, and hyphen. They do not want the Congress to come forward with anything. They are against anything we propose. They have been against everything we have proposed thus far. Let's take their own argument and turn it on its head. Congress has approved $365 billion for Defense. That is a lot of money. We have never squeezed a penny. We have never denied Defense anything. We do not deny the Defense Department anything they want. When they come up and want more money, we give them more money, almost without questions asked. On top of the $365 billion for Defense that we have provided, this bill adds $3.9 billion. That is $3.90 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. Can the Defense Department spend that money? My distinguished chairman asks, can this Government responsibly spend this additional money that Senator Byrd is asking for in this amendment? Well, I ask the same question: Can the Department of Defense spend the money? Can it spend $3.9 billion more? Yes. We are adding $5 billion for homeland defense on homeland security-- the security of your people, Mr. President, my people, my children, our installations, our institutions, our borders, our country. Can we spend that money, $5 billion for homeland defense and homeland security? Yes, they can spend it, and spend it well. Let something happen, and then we will see what the polls show. If something happens, let the American people then take a look backward and see how this Congress sought to add monies for border security, for airport security, for homeland security, for port security. Those are monies the administration threatened to veto. It turned its back on them. It turned its back on the $2.5 billion last year. The President refused to sign a bill that provided $2.5 billion for emergency planning. He turned the back of his hand. He turned his back on his own country when he turned down that opportunity to give $2.5 billion for homeland security, to put it in the hands at the local level, the law enforcement people, the health personnel, the people at the local level. He flatly rejected it. Let something happen, and then see what the polls show. Then see where the questions are asked. Then hear what the answers will be. I say a stitch in time saves nine. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BYRD. Right.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on July 26, 2002, just 6 months ago, the Committee on Appropriations, on a unanimous, bipartisan vote reported a Transportation Appropriations bill that included $1.2 billion in funding for Amtrak. At that time, Amtrak had just weathered a severe financial crisis. Amtrak's President, Mr. David Gunn, testified before the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, just a few weeks into his tenure, and described to us the desperate financial conditions he found when he assumed control of the railroad. It was only through a combination of a $205 million supplemental appropriation that our Committee approved back in July, as well as a temporary loan by the Bush Administration against the railroad's 2003 appropriation, that the railroad survived and continues to run to this day. That Amtrak funding crisis served as a wake-up call for many of us in Congress as well as for the millions of Amtrak riders and the millions of commuter rail riders whose train service depends on a viable operating Amtrak system. However, when the new Republican majority drafted its new appropriations bill for the Transportation Department, it singled out Amtrak for a whopping $374 million cut, a reduction of over 31 percent. Amtrak's new President, David Gunn, has made clear in letters to me and to Senator Stevens, Senator Shelby, Senator Murray, and others that a funding cut of this kind will mean certain bankruptcy for Amtrak by this coming Spring. Now many Senators will speak on this amendment, including a great many that represent the states along the Northeast Corridor. These Members will speak to the impact of an Amtrak bankruptcy on the very fine rail service that we have between Boston and Washington, DC. These Members will speak on what a bankrupt Amtrak means for their daily commuter lines that are either operated by Amtrak under contract or operate over Amtrak's property. But as a Senator from West Virginia, I want to speak today on what Amtrak means to rural America. Amtrak does not just stop in cities like Boston, New York, and Washington, DC. Amtrak serves communities like Beckley, WV; Hinton, WV; Alderson, WV; Charleston, WV; Huntington, WV; Martinsburg, WV, and, Harpers Ferry, WV. These are some of the communities in my state that are served by Amtrak. I can tell you that for a great many of the citizens in those communities, the Amtrak train may be the only way into town and the only way out. When you talk about long-distance travel, the situation is no different in the great many other communities that are served by Amtrak: communities like Pascagoula, MS; Lordsburg, NM; Crestview, FL; Gilman, IL; Wilson, NC; Libby, MT; Winona, MN; Fort Morgan, CO; White Salmon, WA; Sun River, OR; Fulton, KY; Ardmore, OK; and Weaverville, CA. Many of the communities I have just named, like so many communities across the United States, were put on the map by the arrival of the freight railroads as they were built across our country east and west, north and south. Those communities continue to be connected to our national rail network and our national economy through Amtrak. The service may not be the kind of high speed, high comfort rail service that people have come to expect in the Northeast, but it is service that gets grandmothers to their grandchildren; it gets soldiers home to see their parents; it gets college students home for the holidays; and lest we forget, Amtrak moved Americans all over this country, immediately after September 11, when our aviation system was brought to a complete halt. We are now faced with a funding proposal to take all of rural America off of the national rail map and do away with passenger service in its entirety; not just in the heartland of America, but in the Northeast as well. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to talk to the mayors of their towns on the Amtrak rail map and see how they feel about losing their daily service. At a time when rural communities across the country are suffering from economic isolation, ask the people of those communities if they want even greater isolation by losing their rail service. The Amendment that we have offered here today holds the promise of continued rail service and the promise that Amtrak's new president, Mr. David Gunn, will continue his efforts that he just started in getting the railroad's costs under control and creating a national network of which we all can be proud. I ask all of my colleagues to support this Amendment.

Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have?

Mr. BYRD. Right. Right.

Mr. BYRD. It will. It will.

Mr. BYRD. I was off the floor, and I want to make sure I heard. I make this comment in that regard. We heard that same tune last year from Mr. Ridge who was at that time the Director of Homeland Security. His comment was with respect to moneys that were in legislation I was offering. His comment was: We don't need any more. We don't need any more money. The same old tune: We don't need any more money. We heard that from Mr. Ridge last year. I don't speak with criticism of the distinguished Senator who is on the floor, but I am simply pointing out, that is the same old saw, the same old tune we heard last year from the then-designated Director of Homeland Security, Gov. Tom Ridge. He even wrote me a letter.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. How much time does the Senator from New York want?

Mr. BYRD. I realize my leader is in the Chamber and wishes to speak on leader time, and we have other Senators who wish to speak. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. That is right.

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Right.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Washington for clarifying a very critical point. I thank her, and I apologize to her for keeping her waiting. She has been on the floor waiting to make this correction. I am glad she made the correction. I hope that Senators will carefully study what she has said. She has pointed to a yawning flaw in the argument of the other side. I thank her for her contributions to her country.

Mr. BYRD. How much time?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes, and then I want to yield to the distinguished Senator from Washington. I thank the distinguished Democratic leader for his contribution today. I thank both the leader and the assistant leader for what they have contributed to this debate. Mr. President, we talk about sending our troops, men and women, fathers, brothers, husbands, wives, overseas to fight a war in Iraq. We talk as though it is just a video game. Nobody raised a question. We don't hear a whimper--not a whimper. We see the pictures on television every day. These people are going away. We see them kissing. We see them waving goodbye. We see them shedding tears. We know that those tears are shed at night on those pillows. There seems to be no thought to the sacrifices that may be in the offing for this country. They talk as though it is a video game, just a matter of pushing a few buttons and we will win. Well, now, we may be lucky. If we go to war, we may be lucky. I hope we will be lucky. But what if we are not lucky? Where will those who are silent now be? Why don't they raise their voice now? Why don't we ask questions? I am not one to be driven in a hole. We hear a lot about driving them in the holes and we will go in and get them. Our men--our men--will go in and get them. We talk about driving the enemy into holes in Afghanistan and in Iraq--we will drive them into holes. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. We will drive them in the holes; we will go get them. Who is ``we''? It is not I. I don't think I will be going in those holes, driving anybody out. It is going to be those poor men and women who are giving up their salaries as lawyers, as doctors, as teachers, as security people, as law enforcement people, as firemen--they are the people who are going in those holes in Afghanistan. They are the people who are going to go into those holes and bringing out the enemy. We talk as though it is a video game. I hope and I pray to God that if we do go to war with Iraq, we will be lucky. I hope Saddam will catch the first plane out to Libya or to some other country. I hope he will. But what if he doesn't? We have to contemplate that. So I think it is our responsibility here in the Congress to do two things at least: Raise questions, and provide the money for the security of this homeland. We don't know what will happen to this homeland once we open fire in the hot sands of the deserts in the Middle East. We don't know what may break out in this country. Are our water resources fully protected? Are our energy resources fully protected? Are our nuclear facilities fully protected? Are our borders secure? Are our ports secure? Are our airports secure? Are our people secure? No. And here we strain at a gnat and swallow a camel when it comes to fighting and protecting ourselves on the homeland. How many here, right here in this Chamber today, will feel secure in this very Chamber in the future? I say we had better stop, look, and listen while there is time to stop, look, and listen. I will have plenty more to say on that subject. But on the subject of homeland security, let it not be said that we are not doing our very best to give this administration all the tools it needs, all that it can possibly usefully use, all that it can possibly efficiently use, to protect this homeland of ours. And who will say that this land is fully protected? Who feels secure in this homeland of ours today? Ask your wives. Ask your mothers if they feel secure. And here we are, quibbling over $5 billion. Nobody is going to put you in jail if you don't spend it. But if you need to spend it and don't--don't have it, and if you haven't spent it already, why haven't you? Surely we are not perfect. Surely we are not absolutely secure. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator wish? How much time does the Senator from Washington want?

Mr. BYRD. On the last amendment, what was the vote?

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield. How much time do I have, Mr. President?

Mr. BYRD. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Washington.