Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act. Since 1965, Head Start has provided comprehensive early childhood development, educational, health, nutritional, social and other services to low-income preschool children and their families. I believe our goal during the upcoming reauthorization must be to enhance, not dismantle, this essential program so it can continue its important and necessary work to lessen the effects of poverty and ensure that children are ready for school. Head Start serves our poorest children and families but it does not reach enough of them. Although Head Start currently serves over 900,000 children, mainly 3- and 4-year-olds, 40 percent of eligible children, approximately 600,000, are currently not served. Early Head Start, arguably an even more critically important program for infants, toddlers and pregnant women given what we now know about early brain development, serves a mere 3 percent of those eligible. Several measures are needed to improve Head Start while ensuring that its many important services are not reduced. We need to fully fund Head Start so that many more children can benefit. We need resources to improve the quality of Head Start teachers and adequately compensate them. And we need to improve coordination with child care and State- funded pre-kindergarten programs. Unfortunately, the Administration's proposal and the House bill do none of these things. Instead they would create a block grant for States and, by doing so, eliminate both the program's Federal quality standards and the requirement for comprehensive services. With almost all States facing substantial budget deficits and many already cutting funding for early child care and pre-kindergarten programs, a block grant demonstration for one State, eight States, or more would jettison the Head Start guarantee of high quality programs and comprehensive services for our nation's low income children and families. The Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act preserves both the performance standards that ensure quality as well as the comprehensive services such as health screenings, immunizations, nutritious meals, emotional and behavioral supports, and direct support to parents of Head Start children. I will work hard to ensure that these important services are not diminished and that the effort to improve Head Start does not come at the expense or sacrifice of other aspects of the program. A particular focus of mine during the past several education reauthorizations has been to ensure that our teachers get the training and continued professional development they need to help students succeed. Currently, only 25 percent of Head Start teachers hold bachelor's degrees. A key provision in the Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act would require all newly hired teachers to have a minimum of an Associate's degree and all classrooms to have a teacher with a Bachelor's degree by 2008. Importantly, the bill also provides funding for Head Start teachers to meet these requirements and to boost Head Start teacher's salaries to alleviate the shortage and turnover problem that currently exists. Head Start teachers typically earn half the salary of kindergarten teachers. If we expect a higher level of education from these teachers, then we must compensate them at higher levels. Unfortunately, the House bill does not provide the means of achieving either of these goals. It is questionable whether the House bill even provides enough funding to cover the cost of inflation. It clearly does not provide funding to boost salaries or provide the additional educational training to achieve the degree requirements sought. Worse, the House bill reduces the minimum set-aside for training and technical assistance from 2 percent to 1 percent and introduces a cap of 2 percent. We will never attract and retain highly qualified teachers without financial support to enable their education and training and incentives to keep them in the Head Start program. Another troubling aspect of both the Administration's proposal and House bill is that both would allow employment discrimination based on religion in Head Start programs run by religious groups. Faith-based organizations are an integral part of Head Start, having already provided such services for years. We should continue to encourage their participation without allowing them to discriminate. Indeed, during the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing, the Administration witnesses were unable to provide any information on barriers faced by religious organizations in participating in Head Start, nor could they identify any research pointing to the efficacy of teaching by unified religious staff. I will fight hard to prevent such discrimination in Head Start as I have in other bills moving through Congress. I am pleased that provisions I worked on have also been included in The Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act. I am particularly pleased about the over-income provision that will allow more children to qualify whose families are above the poverty line but are still struggling to make ends meet. The parental involvement provisions will encourage the continuity of their involvement and improve the academic success of children in Head Start activities. The library and museum provisions will develop and enhance close collaborations of these institutions with Head Start programs to strengthen literacy skills and other educational outcomes for children. I commend Senators Kennedy and Dodd on their work to draft this bill, and I urge my colleagues to consider and pass this important piece of legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of BG General Jared P. Kennish, Assistant Adjutant General for the Rhode Island Air National Guard. BG Kennish was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious achievement while serving as the commander of the 376th Air Expeditionary Wing at Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan from November 16, 2002 to April 16, 2003 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. BG Kennish was recognized by the United States Air Force for contributing ``significantly to the overwhelming success of air and ground operations against the Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorist networks throughout Afghanistan.'' He led one of the most diverse and multifunctional air wings ever assembled, combining the operations of F-16s, KC-135s, KC-10s, C-130s and Puma helicopters from the Air Forces of the United States, Denmark, Holland, Italy, Norway and Spain. BG Kennish was also recognized as a ``true global mobility visionary'' whose selfless efforts in support of joint air operations during Operation Enduring Freedom ``will be a model for future contingencies.'' BG Kennish's accomplishments throughout Operation Enduring Freedom are no surprise to the great state of Rhode Island. Throughout a career of exemplary service that has spanned over 37 years in the United States Air Force and the Rhode Island Air National Guard, BG Kennish has left his positive imprint in every job he has performed. From service throughout Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm in 1991, to operational deployments in northern Iraq and Mombasa, Kenya, to command of the 143rd Airlift Wing, Rhode Island Air National Guard, BG Kennish has been a shining example of professional excellence of whom all Rhode Islanders are rightly proud. I echo the praise of the United States Air Force in recognizing BG Kennish with the award of the Bronze Star Medal. I ask my colleagues to join with me today, July 29, 2003, in thanking BG Kennish on behalf of a grateful Nation for his selfless service to our country.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act. Since 1965, Head Start has provided comprehensive early childhood development, educational, health, nutritional, social and other services to low-income preschool children and their families. I believe our goal during the upcoming reauthorization must be to enhance, not dismantle, this essential program so it can continue its important and necessary work to lessen the effects of poverty and ensure that children are ready for school. Head Start serves our poorest children and families but it does not reach enough of them. Although Head Start currently serves over 900,000 children, mainly 3- and 4-year-olds, 40 percent of eligible children, approximately 600,000, are currently not served. Early Head Start, arguably an even more critically important program for infants, toddlers and pregnant women given what we now know about early brain development, serves a mere 3 percent of those eligible. Several measures are needed to improve Head Start while ensuring that its many important services are not reduced. We need to fully fund Head Start so that many more children can benefit. We need resources to improve the quality of Head Start teachers and adequately compensate them. And we need to improve coordination with child care and State- funded pre-kindergarten programs. Unfortunately, the Administration's proposal and the House bill do none of these things. Instead they would create a block grant for States and, by doing so, eliminate both the program's Federal quality standards and the requirement for comprehensive services. With almost all States facing substantial budget deficits and many already cutting funding for early child care and pre-kindergarten programs, a block grant demonstration for one State, eight States, or more would jettison the Head Start guarantee of high quality programs and comprehensive services for our nation's low income children and families. The Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act preserves both the performance standards that ensure quality as well as the comprehensive services such as health screenings, immunizations, nutritious meals, emotional and behavioral supports, and direct support to parents of Head Start children. I will work hard to ensure that these important services are not diminished and that the effort to improve Head Start does not come at the expense or sacrifice of other aspects of the program. A particular focus of mine during the past several education reauthorizations has been to ensure that our teachers get the training and continued professional development they need to help students succeed. Currently, only 25 percent of Head Start teachers hold bachelor's degrees. A key provision in the Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act would require all newly hired teachers to have a minimum of an Associate's degree and all classrooms to have a teacher with a Bachelor's degree by 2008. Importantly, the bill also provides funding for Head Start teachers to meet these requirements and to boost Head Start teacher's salaries to alleviate the shortage and turnover problem that currently exists. Head Start teachers typically earn half the salary of kindergarten teachers. If we expect a higher level of education from these teachers, then we must compensate them at higher levels. Unfortunately, the House bill does not provide the means of achieving either of these goals. It is questionable whether the House bill even provides enough funding to cover the cost of inflation. It clearly does not provide funding to boost salaries or provide the additional educational training to achieve the degree requirements sought. Worse, the House bill reduces the minimum set-aside for training and technical assistance from 2 percent to 1 percent and introduces a cap of 2 percent. We will never attract and retain highly qualified teachers without financial support to enable their education and training and incentives to keep them in the Head Start program. Another troubling aspect of both the Administration's proposal and House bill is that both would allow employment discrimination based on religion in Head Start programs run by religious groups. Faith-based organizations are an integral part of Head Start, having already provided such services for years. We should continue to encourage their participation without allowing them to discriminate. Indeed, during the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing, the Administration witnesses were unable to provide any information on barriers faced by religious organizations in participating in Head Start, nor could they identify any research pointing to the efficacy of teaching by unified religious staff. I will fight hard to prevent such discrimination in Head Start as I have in other bills moving through Congress. I am pleased that provisions I worked on have also been included in The Head Start School Readiness and Coordination Act. I am particularly pleased about the over-income provision that will allow more children to qualify whose families are above the poverty line but are still struggling to make ends meet. The parental involvement provisions will encourage the continuity of their involvement and improve the academic success of children in Head Start activities. The library and museum provisions will develop and enhance close collaborations of these institutions with Head Start programs to strengthen literacy skills and other educational outcomes for children. I commend Senators Kennedy and Dodd on their work to draft this bill, and I urge my colleagues to consider and pass this important piece of legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my dismay about the failure to provide the child tax credit to millions of low-income Americans. In this regard, I join my colleague, Senator Johnson, and applaud his efforts to try today, through unanimous consent, to resolve that at least we will as a Congress commit ourselves to give the benefit to low-income families which many other families in America are about to enjoy. Yesterday, the Internal Revenue Service began mailing out the first batch of advance $400 checks to middle and upper-income American families who are receiving the child tax credit. The President was at a mailing facility to get a visual of these checks going out. That is good news for these families. But certainly low-income Americans have the same needs; in fact, one might argue even more compelling needs for help and assistance to raise their children. Mr. President, 6.5 million low-income families will not receive a check today. They will be left out. Even though this body acted prudently to give them the opportunity, the House, in May, dropped the provisions and did not respond with an appropriate bill. On June 5, nearly 2 months ago, this Senate, in a bipartisan manner, passed legislation that would provide for the refundability of these tax credits and in effect give the credit to low-income families. I commend all of the individual Senators who have led the way both on the Finance Committee and, in particular, Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, who has been advocating strenuously for this very fair and very prudent approach. The House, on the other hand, passed an expansive $82 billion tax cut package surrounding this child tax care credit. As a result, they politicized and essentially frustrated the obvious and the compelling need to help these low-income families. The President has called for the passage of this act, but frankly, other than appearing yesterday at a mailing facility, he has not done a great deal to force the House to pass this very simple, very necessary measure. I hope we can make progress on this. This tax credit for child care is an important benefit for all of our families and, as I said before, very important for low-income Americans. They are struggling and with both parents working two jobs to make ends meet. These are the working Americans who are doing difficult work and working very hard. They deserve the same kind of assistance to raise their children we are providing for middle and upper-income Americans. This is a question of fairness, certainly. It is unfair, in my view, that we would provide benefits for certain children--ironically, some of the most affluent children--and not provide similar benefits for low-income families with children. It is just patently unfair. Also, it is part of an emerging pattern of indifference, and worse, towards low- income Americans. There is the issue of the Earned-Income Tax Credit. This has been an enormously successful program. It has, in my State of Rhode Island alone, provided $90 million to over 57,000 families in the year 2001, giving them additional help based upon their work. Recall now, this is the Earned-Income Tax Credit; you have to be working, you have to qualify by accumulating income to get the tax credit. This is one of those very ingenious mechanisms which help lift families and children out of poverty, and it has done so with remarkable success. It has been a tax provision supported by both sides of the aisle enthusiastically for several decades. But now the IRS has announced its intention to require elaborate precertification for EITC eligibility for about 45,000, as they term it, high-risk households. Generally these are households in which grandparents or single fathers are raising children. But perhaps of more concern to me is that there are plans to expand this precertification process to 2 million households in the year 2004 and to 5 million households within 3 years. This is a move that President Bush clearly supports, because he requested $100 million in additional funds for the fiscal year 2004 budget for this so-called compliance initiative. If we were to propose an elaborate precertification for middle-income and upper-income tax advantages, there would be howls of protest. We would rush to this floor crying foul, accusing the IRS of overreaching and meddling with burdensome impacts upon taxpayers. But that is exactly what, in my view, is happening to low-income families in the budget proposal of the President for this precertification. Again, I note the President has requested $100 million for additional funds to supposedly precertify families qualifying for a tax advantage under the Earned-Income Tax Credit. Just yesterday we couldn't afford, according to the vote, $100 million for improved transit security in the United States. That suggests to me the wrong, and perverse, if you will, priorities. If we are spending $100 million to try to force low- income families to come up with documentation to qualify for a tax cut but we can't find the money to protect the subways and the trains and the buses in the United States, that suggests something askew in our policies and our priorities. I think what the pre-certification does, frankly, and maybe intentionally, will dissuade some individuals who qualify for the EITC from coming forward and applying for it. They might not understand the new precertification. They might have to pay for tax advice to do it appropriately. And one other point: the IRS has the authority to release all this documentation to the Department of Justice and other Federal agencies at their discretion, which might cause some people concerns about privacy. This is something that, again, if we proposed it for middle- or upper-income Americans, you could not hear yourself think because of the howls of protest in this body. Indeed, back in 1998 we passed the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act because of supposed taxpayer harassment inflicted upon middle- and upper-income Americans by the IRS. It seems when it comes to low-income Americans who work and who qualify for the EITC, harassment isn't a problem when it comes to proposals by the administration. I am also disappointed that in line with this attack against low- income Americans is the inability of this body and the other body to pass a long-term unemployment compensation benefit that will really take care of all the Americans who are suffering because of an economy that is functioning poorly--and that is being polite--at this moment. Unemployment in June was up to 6.4 percent, and those numbers don't even include the 4.5 million underemployed individuals, those who are working part time, looking for full-time employment but struggling to get by on part-time jobs. At least 1.3 million of these 4.5 million are in that category of looking for long-term, full-time employment but having to settle for something part-time. Yet they are excluded from our unemployment compensation provisions. In addition, we will shortly be looking at new rules by the Department of Labor with regard to the Fair Labor Standards Act that relax overtime protection. We are also encountering proposals to increase the TANF requirements from 30 hours to 40 hours per week. Here, at a time when there are so many Americans struggling to find a job, struggling to find a few hours of part-time work, we are proposing to increase the number of work hours under the TANF Program. I think this approach to TANF will be another impact on the low-income children of this country because it will necessarily require mothers to spend less time with their children. Again, this is another example of a policy that is not good for the economy and it is certainly not good for children. Then we are looking at Head Start proposals and AmeriCorps proposals, as Senator Stevens just indicated, that are shortchanging so many people, particularly young people in this country. Again, I hope we can very quickly resolve this issue with respect to the child tax credit, the underlying point of my remarks today. There are 6.5 million wage earners who are working, contributing to our economy, and trying with all their might to raise their children. Today we are ignoring the plight of all of those 6.5 million people. I hope our indifference will end very quickly. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank my colleagues for their support, and I look forward to working with them to ensure that the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement can successfully meet its investigative responsibilities in Rhode Island and throughout the Nation. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. REED. Mr. President, there are 6,000 transit systems throughout the United States in every State in the Union. All of them need additional resources to improve their security. We know they are targets. Worldwide, there already have been 195 attacks against transit systems from buses in Israel to a sarin gas attack against the subway system of Tokyo which killed 11 and injured over 5,000 individuals. To fully protect all of these systems, the GAO has estimated we would need billions of dollars. The Reed-Sarbanes-Clinton amendment is a modest first step to authorize the appropriation of $100 million for grants to transit systems for equipment, training, and other security needs. The need is clear. The threat is obvious. I urge support for this amendment and retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes equally divided.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to engage the chairman and ranking member in a colloquy regarding the increasing demand for investigative work by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Rhode Island. Neither the Bureau nor its predecessor, the U.S. Customs Service, has stationed a permanent investigator or special agent in Rhode Island. Several years ago, two special agents were designated to serve my State but were stationed in Boston, where they have frequently been pulled away to other duties. Without a permanent investigative presence in Rhode Island, serious and growing challenges remain unaddressed, including financial crimes, money laundering, and the smuggling of narcotics and other contraband that enter by marine vessels and on international flights at Rhode Island's T.F. Green Airport. The legislation before us includes an additional $20,300,000 to increase investigations staffing for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I applaud the chairman and ranking member for providing these funds and for including language in the committee report recognizing the need to devote additional resources to the core investigative missions of the Bureau. I would ask my colleagues, the Senators from Mississippi and West Virginia, to join me in urging the Bureau to ensure that Rhode Island and other underserved States receive a permanent investigative presence to meet these growing challenges.

Mr. REED. I thank my colleagues for providing this level of funding, and I look forward to working with them to ensure that our Nation's airports can successfully meet their security needs. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to engage the chairman and ranking member in a colloquy regarding letters of intent for the installation of airport security equipment. The bill before us includes $309 million for the installation of Electronic Detection Systems, also known as EDS, at our Nation's airports, which is an increase of $309 million over the President's request. I applaud the inclusion of these funds as our Nation's airports face increased security demands and limited growth in passenger traffic revenues in the wake of September 11. My State's airport authority, the Rhode Island Airport Corporation, RIAC, was amongst the first airports to have EDS screening of all passenger bags. However, RIAC was forced to place these large machines in the terminal waiting area at my State's main airport, T.F. Green, causing significant disruption. Since that time, RIAC and my office have worked to make sure that the TSA and FAA are aware of this situation and the need for Federal assistance to modify the terminal at T.F. Green to increase the efficiency of the facility, the security of the EDS machines, and ease of passenger movement. I would ask my colleagues, the Senators from Mississippi and West Virginia, if it is their understanding from the Transportation Security Administration that the level of funding included in this bill is sufficient to meet the needs of airports such as T.F. Green which are far along in the planning process and that the TSA believes that it cannot expend more than the $309 million in fiscal year 2004?

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the purpose of our amendment is not necessarily to impede any deployment of technology. It simply recognizes that even if this technology is deployed, tested, or evaluated in 6 stations or 100 stations, the cost of implementing this system and other systems--the amendment talks about protecting transportation facilities, not just subway lines, but buses and interurban transportation, all types and modes of transportation--even if you could deploy, the cost would be significant. Our amendment asks that this budget recognize those significant costs. Again, there is no question that the chairman has tried his best to come up with the resources to try to meet this need. But the need is so staggering--billions and billions of dollars. The funds in this bill devoted to transit security is so meager that our amendment simply tries to strike a balance. The $100 million would go to help systems buy equipment and train personnel. All of that is necessary. We also would ask that the Department of Homeland Security issue the plans they have long said they were going to do between the proper transportation and the proper homeland security to coordinate their activities with respect to transit security. I urge the amendment be adopted. I further point out that even if we were to adopt this amendment--I understand at the appropriate moment the Senator from Mississippi will make a budget point of order--this is truly a very modest downpayment on the cost of ensuring that all of our transit systems, our buses, and our subway systems have the same degree of preparedness as we are trying to develop for our airlines and for other modes of transportation. If we reject this amendment, we will simply be in a situation where we might be able to demonstrate a few projects, and we might be able to test the system, but we will never deploy those systems across the Nation in transit systems. There are 6,000 transit systems. Again, it is $100 million, just a meager downpayment for what is really a multibillion-dollar requirement for the United States. I recognize that the Senator has said he is proposing to make a point of order. At this point, I yield my time in anticipation of such a point of order.

Mr. REED. I am happy to yield 8 minutes.

Mr. REED. Senator Sarbanes and I asked for a GAO report on transit security. The GAO visited 10 transit properties all over the country of varying sizes and characteristics. They surveyed 200 of the 6,000 transit operators of the Nation. Their report clearly indicates the compelling need for Federal assistance. In addition to that, it clearly indicates the scope of that system. Of just eight of the transit systems that had conducted professional security assessments and asked professionals to come in and review procedures, equipment, personnel, the cost to upgrade these systems, for just 8 out of 6,000, was $700 million. If we were to upgrade all of our transit systems in this country, it would be on the order of billions of dollars. Yet, those costs have not been met by the administration for this compelling need. The administration has barely funded transit security, about $88 million. Some of this, frankly, was discretionary funding from the Department of Homeland Security which they, to their credit, decided to commit to the issue of transit security. We have to provide the resources. In addition, we have to also ensure that there is appropriate responsibility and oversight. That is why our amendment also calls on the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation to sign a memorandum of agreement to ensure that the two agencies, as well as the Federal Transit Administration and the Transportation Security Administration, have in place strong linkages, coordination, and understanding of their mutual and separate roles. We have been repeatedly assured that this agreement was imminent. It has yet to be produced, yet to be issued. Our amendment asks that this be done expeditiously. My colleague, Senator Sarbanes, will address these points also. Our position today is not to cause panic but to prevent panic by having the resources so that our transit systems are not targets of terrorists and that our transit systems can, in fact, provide value to the support in the wake of any type of attack on a major urban area in the United States by terrorists. This is a well-crafted amendment. Certainly the need is there. I urge support of the amendment. I recognize at some point the chairman may raise a budget point of order against my amendment, and at the appropriate time either I or Senator Reid of Nevada will move to waive the point of order. I urge my colleagues to support my motion to waive. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. 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, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, earlier this week, the Senate debated a comprehensive amendment by Senator Byrd with respect to deficiencies in this bill regarding resources for homeland security. Essentially, what Senator Byrd was trying to do was to match the resources we need with the rhetoric we have heard about protecting the homeland of the United States. I am disappointed Senator Byrd's amendment did not prevail. Within that amendment, there were resources devoted to transit security. Today, I offer an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Sarbanes to address what I think is an amazing and unacceptable lack of resources and investment for securing and protecting our Nation's trains, buses, and ferries. Indeed, these vehicles and these transportation modes provide transportation for millions of Americans each day, and they require protection. I want to be clear. This is not the fault of the committee, and certainly not the fault of the chairman who has done an extraordinary job in securing an additional $1 billion for the subcommittee's allocation. But the fact is that the administration has not asked for sufficient resources to protect the transit systems in the United States. Again, this is why, together with Senator Sarbanes, I am offering this amendment to add $100 million for the protection of our public transit systems. Each day, millions of Americans, old and young, rich and poor, every kind of American, board a bus or a train to go to work, school, or a doctor's appointment. Each year the Federal Government spends billions of dollars to build and maintain these systems. Yet to date, shockingly, the Federal Government has only invested below $90 million in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for transit security if we exclude the very special circumstances of rebuilding transit systems that were attacked and severely damaged during the September 11 attack. We have recognized the need to protect our airlines and we have spent billions of dollars to do so, but there is the same compelling need to protect the transit systems of the United States. There are two major reasons we must protect these transit systems: First, we want to avoid, preempt, and prevent, a terrorist event involving a transit system; second, we need transit systems that have interoperable communications, trained personnel, and additional equipment to mitigate the consequences of any type of terrorist event in the United States. It is quite clear transit systems are a target of terrorists. According to a report in 1994 by John P. Sullivan and Henry I. DeGeneste: ``Transit systems are attractive targets for a number of reasons. They carry large numbers of people within concentrated, predictable areas and timeframes. They are accessible since they provide easy user access. Finally, their target-rich infrastructure which often covers extensive geographic areas frequently renders countermeasures impractical.'' So we know this. Indeed, the Federal Transit Administration knows it. To their credit, they have taken meager resources to provide transit assessment assistance to any transit system that is required or requested. They have been able to advise these transit systems. But advice is not dollars. Advice does not build or buy equipment that will protect commuters in our transit systems. We already know transit systems are a target, in many cases targets of choice. The Mineta Institute indicates that between 1997 to 2000 there were 195 terrorist attacks against transit systems worldwide. Most of these attacks were against buses. I should point out, 90 percent of these attacks occurred against buses. In the Middle East, we have seen the horrific pictures of buses blown up by suicide bombers. No one wants to see such pictures in the United States. Of course, the most horrific example of a terrorist attack against transit was the 1995 sarin gas attack in Japan where 11 people were killed and 5,500 innocent people were injured due to the work of a small band of crazed individuals. We understand there is a great potential for terror attacks against transit systems. Given the increasing danger of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, these transit attacks could be horrific in the future. I also mention that not only do we need to avoid attacks against transit, we need to be prepared in the case of another terrorist attack in the United States. I refer to testimony before my subcommittee last year, as I chaired the subcommittee with respect to transit's role in September 11. The first is a statement by Jenna Dorn, the Administrator on the Federal Transit Administration. At 8:52 a.m. on September 11th, minutes after the first hijacked jet plowed into One World Trade Center, a Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) train master gave life-saving instructions to conductors and operators. A train from Newark, carrying about 1,000 passengers, had just pulled into the station below the World Trade Center. The train master told the crew to keep everyone on the train, board everyone in the station, and immediately depart for the Exchange Place stop in Jersey City. Public transportation employees immediately evacuated passengers who mistakenly left the train. A train from Hoboken carrying another 1,000 people was just behind the Newark train. The train master told that crew to keep the doors closed at the Trade Center and head immediately to Jersey City. The train master then told another train in Jersey City to discharge all passengers and head back to the World Trade Center to evacuate remaining travelers and transit personnel. That train departed with its precious cargo at 9:10 a.m., 40 minutes before the first building collapsed. That train master, Richie Moran, and PATH's emergency response plan, saved thousands of lives. As we watched the death toll climb in New York, it is astounding to realize that no one riding the PATH or New York City subway lines that morning was injured. That is not an accident. That is the result of good communications, planning, training, all the issues that they showed in New York City. But let me suggest the level of planning, training, and equipment in New York City is not duplicated in many cities around this country--and it should be. Also, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record excerpts from the statement by Richard A. White, the general manager of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, who talks of the integral role of that system in evacuating personnel during the attack on the Pentagon.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the American Political Science Association, APSA, Congressional Fellowship Program. The APSA Fellowship Program is a highly selective, nonpartisan legislative working experience that provides fellows with ``hands-on'' experience as legislative assistants on personal or committee staff. Founded in 1953, the APSA Congressional Fellowship Program helps to expand the knowledge and awareness of Congress to professionals from academia, journalism, health care, foreign countries, and government agencies. It enables fellows to observe and participate in the inner workings of Congress and the policymaking process. In doing so, fellows gain a greater appreciation for and knowledge of the policymaking process. Overall, the APSA Congressional Fellowship Program offers an enriching experience for its participants by providing a 3-week orientation program, allowing fellows to select their own placements, and conducting ongoing seminars throughout the fellowship period. I have been fortunate to host four APSA fellows. In 2000, Hanna Marter, a Federal fellow from the Central Intelligence Agency joined my staff to work on health issues. In 2002, Joyce Iutcovitch, an American Sociological Association fellow, worked in my office on education issues, and Deborah Wolf, a Federal agency fellow from the Food and Drug Administration, worked on health care issues. Currently, Susan Dimock, an American Sociological Association fellow, is serving on my staff working on health care issues. APSA fellows have contributed to my office by applying their expertise and analytical skills to policy issues, and have functioned as full members of my staff. Let us recognize the APSA Congressional Fellowship Program and its 1,800 alumni for their contributions to the legislative work of Congress and to furthering participation in the democratic process.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I commend Mayor James Doyle and the city of Pawtucket, RI for being recognized by the United States Conference of Mayors Best Small Business Practices 2003. This public- private partnership between the Conference of Mayors and American Management Services identifies outstanding programs and initiatives that successfully promote business development. Over the past few years, as Rhode Island has witnessed a decline in manufacturing, cities throughout the State have increasingly been left with unused plants and mills. This trend has been especially apparent in Pawtucket, a city that had been a symbol of manufacturing and industrial innovation ever since Samuel Slater successfully built cotton spinning machines at Slater Mill in 1793. For the next 200 years, Pawtucket was home to a thriving textile industry and machines and ironworking shops, but from 1991 to 2001, over 3,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. Drawing on Pawtucket's rich history as a home to artists, Mayor Doyle reached out to the artist community and embraced an innovative solution to these emptied mills that once were the engines of growth for Pawtucket. City leaders and Mayor Doyle worked to create the largest arts and entertainment district in Rhode Island, and, although it typically takes a decade or more for cities to see tangible results from these districts, Pawtucket is already enjoying its benefits. Five mill properties have been sold to artists for commercial and live-work lofts, and 122 artists rent eight mill properties, filling 117,000 square feet of previously empty space. The burgeoning arts district is also expected to improve quality of life and raise property values. Indeed, according to Department of Commerce models of economic multipliers, the city of Pawtucket has estimated that two new jobs will be generated for every three new artists who move into the district. The United States Conference of Mayors' recognition of this initiative establishes in name what was already becoming known about Pawtucket. Through visionary leadership, the city is a leader in changing with the times and setting itself up for future success. Mayor Doyle has always been a strong advocate for the arts, and his determination and belief in this initiative is perhaps best encapsulated when he stated: ``Some say a picture is worth a thousand words. But here in our city we know that it's worth a lot more. Combine this picture with pieces of one-of-a-kind artwork sold citywide from local studios and galleries--small businesses--and you create a powerful economic engine that can totally transform a City.'' I agree wholeheartedly with Mayor Doyle, and commend him and the people of Pawtucket for their forward thinking and commitment to innovation and the arts.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Byrd amendment. The Senator from West Virginia has clearly identified that there are inadequate resources being devoted to homeland security, and the paramount concern and responsibility of this body is to protect the homeland. We have to do that. It cannot simply be protected by rhetoric. There have to be real resources applied to the task. In the wake of 9/11, this Congress laid out very clearly and very deliberately, after much consideration and consultation, major legislation such as the Transportation Security Act of 2002, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, and the USA PATRIOT Act. All of these legislative pronouncements laid out a framework to secure our homeland and, as Senator Byrd points out, we are not living up to the requirements that were clearly identified by that legislation in terms of appropriations. Specifically addressed by Senator Byrd's amendment is a shortfall in seaports, Coast Guard, and land transit security of $602 million; police, fire, and emergency medical teams of $729.5 million; security at United States borders with Canada and Mexico of $238.5 million; air cargo security, $100 million; and chemical facility security, $80 million. Now, all of these protections are imperative because what we have discovered from those who wish us ill--terrorist cells--is first they are sophisticated; second, they are ruthless; and third, they tend to strike at areas which are the least protected, not the most protected. We have made significant improvements in our air transportation system in terms of passenger travel, screening passengers, and I do not think most security consultants would say that would be the primary route of a new attack against us. We still have miles to go with respect to seaport security, maritime security, security at the borders, air cargo security. Again, given the nature of our opponents, our adversaries, it is likely they would look to these places, rather than areas we have reinforced or fortified, to launch another attack. The Transportation Security Agency, as we all know, is responsible for all modes of transportation security. Yet the TSA, as I have suggested, has focused almost exclusively on our air transportation system with passenger travel throughout the United States and throughout the world. With a $4.8 billion budget, TSA has committed only $86 million for maritime and land security activities in this budget proposed by the administration. In contrast, $4.3 billion was requested for aviation security. In fact, the budget requests for administrative costs at TSA, their headquarters and the mission support centers, consist of amounts to $218 million, 2.5 times greater than the total request for maritime and land security activities. As a result, the budget proposed by the President, the budget Senator Byrd seeks to amend, does not fully recognize the potential threats to our ports, to our interstate buses, trucks that carry hazardous material, trains, our transit system, chemical factories--and the list, unfortunately, is longer. Let me for a moment concentrate on one area of particular concern; that is, public transit. In the last Congress, I had the opportunity, responsibility, and privilege of being the chairman of the subcommittee in the Banking Committee that dealt with transit issues. We had several hearings with respect to numerous transit issues but particularly with respect to transit security. We found, and the GAO verified, there is a huge demand for resources to protect our transit systems, our subway systems, our bus systems. This bill hardly measures up to that. The Byrd amendment--and I commend the Senator--would increase our efforts in transit security by $57 million. Frankly, based upon the testimony I heard last year before my committee, this is literally the proverbial drop in the bucket. There are some estimates--one by the American Public Transportation Association--that the needs for transit security through all the transit systems in this country would amount to $6 billion, primarily in the areas of communication, surveillance, detection systems, personnel, and training. For the benefit of my colleagues, I will state that in the wake of the tragedy of 9/11, there was something remarkable taking place that minimized our casualities both in New York City and in Washington, DC. Particularly in Washington, DC, the subway system was the major source or route of evacuation for literally thousands and thousands of people. This system in Washington has been the beneficiary of a great deal of attention. It might be because of the proximity to the appropriators but, indeed, it had effective communications, it had a well-managed and well-trained group of operators, and they were able to move people literally underneath the Pentagon even though that building had been attacked. In New York City, the transit operators, these individual transit police officers and station masters, were able successfully to evacuate the subways and move people out because of communication systems, because of training, because of the infrastructure already there. Those two systems--New York City and Washington, DC--are some of the most sophisticated in the country. Other parts of the country, other areas do not have the communication systems; they do not have the training; they do not have the expertise. That would go for probably every system, to varying degrees, throughout my country. In my home State of Rhode Island, we have a statewide bus system, which is a good system, but they would be the first to say they need more training; they need more communications equipment; they need redundant communication systems in the event of an emergency so they can get through to the operators and the operators can get through to their dispatchers and controllers. That is just one example of the tremendous need for help for transit security. There are approximately 6,000 transit agencies in the United States. These transit agencies provide over 9 billion trips per year, representing 43 billion passenger miles. Yet there is very minimal funding in this bill for transit security. Once again, if you believe, as I, that our adversaries are cunning, ruthless, and will strike at the most vulnerable portions of our country, transit is a target that I am sure is being considered. We have to do something to protect our riders, the literally millions of riders a year. I hope we can support enthusiastically the Byrd amendment. It would represent a significant increase in our homeland security. It would address the areas that have been neglected in this bill sent to us by the administration. Once again I emphasize, particularly in the area of transit security, even if we were to pass the Byrd amendment, if we wanted to ensure that all of our transit systems have the most up-to-date equipment and communications, that all of their personnel were well trained, we would be talking not about an additional several million dollars but we would be talking about literally billions of dollars. I commend the Senator from West Virginia for his leadership. This is not the first time he has come to this floor to argue eloquently and passionately that we should defend our homeland. I am sure it will not be the last. I hope we can support this amendment.

Mr. REED. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. I yield.