With public warnings ringing in our ears from Secretary Ridge that another terrorist attack is inevitable, some may argue that our homeland security needs seem endless and therefore, the Congress must set limits.  I agree.  Congress must set limits.  That is why this amendment focuses on the specific expanded homeland security missions that Congress has authorized since 9/11, but that the Administration has yet to adequately fund. Unfortunately, the budget resolution endorsed by this White House has forced us to exclude from the bill some funding that both the Congress and the President have recognized as being real needs.  This amendment focuses on those critical shortfalls.

One of the mysteries about the President's budget is the budget for the Transportation Security Administration, or TSA.  TSA was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 and was supposed to focus on securing all modes of transportation.  Yet, the President's budget includes only $86 million or 2 percent of the TSA budget for maritime and land security.  The rest of the President's budget request is for aviation security and for administration.  What about securing our ports?  What about securing our trains, our railroad tunnels, and our subways?  What about buses, or securing the trucks that carry hazardous materials? 

In fact, the President's budget requests 2.5 times more for administering the TSA bureaucracy than he does for securing the nation's ports, trains, trucks, and buses. 

My amendment would add $602 million for maritime and land transportation funding.  To his credit, Chairman Cochran provided $295 million for these programs.  My amendment further enhances the good work he has begun.

On November 25, 2002, the same day that the President signed the Homeland Security Act, he also signed the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA), putting in place significant new standards for improving the security of our 361 ports around the nation.  On July 1, the Coast Guard published regulations putting the MTSA into action. 

During the Senate Appropriations Committee's homeland security hearings last year, one witness, Stephen Flynn, noted that the nation's seaports "are the only part of an international boundary that the federal government invests no money in terms of security . . . . Most ports, the best you get is a chain link fence with maybe some barbed wire."

Is that comforting?

Consider that U.S. ports receive 16,000 cargo containers per day and more than 6 million containers per year; that U.S. ports are home to oil refineries and chemical plants that process noxious, volatile chemicals; that there are 68 nuclear power plants located along U.S. waterways; that the average shipping container measures 8 feet by 40 feet and can hold 60,000 pounds; and that a ship or tanker transporting cargo can hold more explosives and dangerous materials than could ever be smuggled in an airplane or a truck crossing a land border.

Yet, despite the clear danger, the best port protection the American people have is a chain link fence?  It is unfathomable why we have not insisted that this amendment be signed into law months ago.

This amendment would make sure that more than a chain link fence is protecting the nation's ports. 

The Coast Guard has estimated that it will cost the ports $5.4 billion during the next decade to implement Maritime Transportation Security Act standards, including $1.1 billion this year; yet, the President did not request one dime for port security.  My amendment would increase port security grant funding from the $150 million contained in the bill by $460 million.  This would provide a total of $610 million for this program.

The Commandant of the Coast Guard testified before the House authorizing committee on June 3, 2003 about the implementation of the MTSA legislation.  He said, "The regulatory impact on the maritime industry will be significant, and the time line for implementing the new robust maritime security requirements is exceptionally short."

However, the Administration, while aggressively supporting federal security funding for the aviation industry, has failed in four straight spending requests to include a single penny for port security grants even though 95% of all non- North American U.S. trade enters our 361 ports around the nation.

During our Homeland Security Subcommittee hearings this spring, I asked Under Secretary Asa Hutchinson why there was no money requested in the President's budget for port security grants and he testified that he believed that it was the responsibility of the port industry.  Yet the port industry's first priority is moving goods through the ports as quickly as possible because that increases profits.  There must be incentives if we are to realistically expect the ports to improve security.

This year, TSA received over $1 billion of applications from the ports for the limited funding that was approved by Congress last year.  There clearly is a demand from the ports, for help to harden physical security to reduce the nation's well documented seaport vulnerabilities.

The amendment also addresses other important homeland security needs authorized by the Maritime Transportation Security Act -- and yet again NOT funded. 

The Maritime Transportation Security Act requires that vessel and port facility owners prepare and submit security plans to the Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of deterring a transportation security incident.  The Coast Guard serves as the lead agency to develop a National Maritime Transportation Security Plan and review all security plans prepared by vessel or facility owners or operators.

To meet requirements set in the MTSA, vessel and facility owners must submit security plans to the Coast Guard for review and approval by the end of calendar year 2003.  Once again, the Administration provided no funding to the Coast Guard for this effort or for tracking compliance with the plans in its FY 04 budget request.

In recent testimony, Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thomas H. Collins acknowledged that the Coast Guard still needs an additional $70 million and 150 full-time employees by this fall to review and approve more than 10,000 security plans by vessel and facility owners.  My amendment provides the money.

My amendment also provides $57 million for public transit grants.  According to a Mineta Transportation Institute study, one-third of terrorist attacks worldwide have been on transportation systems, and transit systems are the mode most commonly attacked.  According to the study, nine surface transportation systems were the target of more than 195 terrorist attacks from 1997 through 2000.

The approximately 6,000 transit agencies in the United States provide more than 9 billion trips each year representing 43 billion passenger miles, yet the Administration has provided minimal funding for transit security.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently reported that, "insufficient funding is the most significant challenge in making transit systems as safe and secure as possible."  At just 8 of the 10 transit agencies surveyed, GAO identified the need for security improvements estimated at $700 million.  The GAO also found that, "TSA has yet to exert full responsibility for the security of any transportation mode other than aviation."

The chemical attack on the Tokyo subway system in 1995 is a sobering reminder of how a terrorist attack on one transit system can affect human lives, the economy, and confidence in our transit systems.  How many times do we have to witness attacks on transit systems in other countries before we secure our transit systems? 

This amendment would provide $57 million in direct grants to the Transportation Security Administration to help with that shortfall.

My amendment also would add $15 million to the $10 million already provided in this bill for inter-city bus grants.  A study conducted by the Mineta Transportation Institute, Protecting Public Surface Transportation against Terrorism and Serious Crime, found that during the period, 1997-2000, 54% of worldwide attacks on surface transportation systems were against buses or bus terminals. 

Almost 800 million people ride over-the-road buses annually, more than the airlines and Amtrak combined.  Intercity buses serve approximately 5000 communities daily, compared to roughly 500 each for the airlines and Amtrak.  Intercity buses serve those who truly need public transportation -- rural residents who have no other public transportation alternatives and urban residents who must rely on affordable public transportation. 

Given the important role that intercity buses play in the nation's transportation system and their susceptibility to terrorist attacks, they must be protected. 

One of the most glaring funding deficiencies identified in the recent Rudman report is the poor support for first responders.  The report estimated that America will fall approximately $98.4 billion short of meeting critical emergency responder needs in the next five years, if current funding levels are maintained.  But the legislation before the Senate does not even maintain that current funding level.

While the underlying bill provides first responder funding at a level that is $303 million above the President's request, it is $434 million below the level that the Congress approved for the current fiscal year.

In the nearly two years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, states and cities have worked to better protect the nation.  They have undertaken critical assessments of vulnerabilities.  They have provided specialized training to police officers, firemen, and emergency medical teams.  They have attempted to close as many gaps as possible to prevent another terrorist attack.  Unfortunately, for many communities, they have had to act without the support of the federal government.

A March 2003 analysis by the U.S. Conference of Mayors reports that cities are spending an additional $70 million per week on personnel costs alone, to keep up with security requirements.  Mayors and governors have contacted almost every Member of this Congress, practically begging for additional funds to help defray the huge expenses for homeland security.  Their requests come at a time when cities, counties, and states are in the worst financial shape in decades.  Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn stated earlier this year that "We've dug deep into our own pockets.  Now we really need the help of the federal government (Los Angeles Times, February 23)."  They have come hat in hand for help, and we ought not turn our backs to them.

My amendment adds $500 million to the budget of the Office of Domestic Preparedness for First Responders.  Specifically, it provides $250 million for State grants, and $250 million for High Threat Urban Areas, bringing the total for high-threat urban areas to $1 billion.  This amendment provides funds to meet the immediate and growing needs that state and local first responders have for funds for equipment, training, homeland security exercises and planning. 

The needs are great.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Fire Protection Association, only 13 percent of fire departments have the equipment and training to handle an incident involving chemical or biological agents. 

40% of fire department personnel involved in hazardous material response lack formal training in those duties.

Only 10 percent of fire departments in the United States have the personnel and equipment to respond to a building collapse.

Funds would be used to purchase:  Personal protective equipment for first responders -- chemical resistant gloves, boots, and undergarments;  Interoperable communications equipment portable radios, satellite phones, batteries;  Detection equipment - equipment to monitor, detect, sample, identify and quantify chemical, biological, radiological/nuclear and explosive agents;  Medical supplies and pharmaceuticals; and, Training costs and paying overtime costs associated with attendance at training for emergency responders, emergency managers, and public officials.

My amendment also provides $79.5 million for grants for interoperable communications equipment.  This bill currently includes no funds specifically for interoperable communications equipment.  This amendment proposes to add $79.5 million, the same amount that was provided in fiscal year 2003.

The initial $79.5 million was a small step in starting the process of integrating and coordinating communications equipment between and among first responders –  firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical personnel -- a deficiency uncovered during the 9-11 attacks on the United States.

Only one-fourth of all fire departments can communicate with all of their rescue partners.  The Council on Foreign Relations' June, 2003 study on Homeland Security Needs estimated that the need for interoperable communications equipment funding was $6.8 billion over the next five years.

The amendment also provides an additional $150 million for fire grants.  The Senate bill includes $750 million for assistance to firefighter grants, roughly the same amount as last year.  This amendment would add $150 million for fire grants, which would bring the total to $900 million, the level authorized.  Our fire departments need this money. 

On average, fire departments across the country have only enough radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift, and breathing apparatuses for only one third. 

In the three years this program has been in existence, it has become one of the best run programs in the federal government.  This Senate should fund this program at the authorized level.  Our frontline defenders deserve no less.

In October of 2001, the President signed the Patriot Act which called for tripling the number of border patrol agents and Customs and immigration inspectors on the northern border.  In May of 2002, the President signed the Enhanced Border Security Act, which authorized significant new investments in border patrol agents and facilities.  The goals with regard to Customs inspectors and border facilities can not be met with the limited funding that was made available for this bill.

My amendment adds $100 million for improvements to our border ports-of-entry.  There are 197 ports-of-entry on our Nation's land borders.  Of those, 128 are stretched across our 5,525 mile long border with Canada.  The remaining sites are along our highly-trafficked border with Mexico. 

Most facilities along the U.S.-Canada border were constructed either as part of the Civilian Conservation Corps program during the Great Depression or in the period between 1950 and 1965.  These older facilities are having an increasingly difficult time meeting the energy and power requirements of today's technology.

Along the U.S.-Mexico border, traffic both in people and goods has more than doubled since the last major border infrastructure effort was launched during the Reagan Administration.

Trade with Canada has doubled in the last decade, while trade with Mexico has tripled during the same time frame.  However, the facilities through which trade must flow have not been expanded or enhanced to keep pace with this traffic. 

A Congressionally mandated study called the "Ports of Entry Infrastructure Assessment Study" completed over a year prior to the tragic events of September 11, 2001 identified a growing backlog of infrastructure needs at our Nation's border crossings.  It specifically identified 822 infrastructure requirements with an estimated gross cost of $784 million.  That report was completed three years ago last month -- but Congress has yet to seriously begin to address this growing problem.

Consistent with the Enhanced Border Security Act and legislation introduced in this body by a bipartisan group of Senators, this amendment provides $100 million for the new Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to begin addressing this backlog.  The funds provided in this amendment could be used to replace the trailer -- yes, the trailer -- that serves as a border port-of-entry in Easton, Maine or to complete construction of the San Diego fence along the border with Mexico which was authorized by Congress in 1997.

My amendment would also add $138.5 million to hire additional border protection staff to meet the levels authorized in the USA PATRIOT Act. 

While funding in the Committee bill will allow the Bureau for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to succeed in meeting the Congressionally mandated staffing goal for the Border Patrol by the end of this fiscal year, the remaining components of this newly created bureau fall far short of meeting the authorized target.

The PATRIOT Act authorizes a total of 4,845 legacy Customs, Immigration and Agriculture inspection personnel along the Northern Border by the end of fiscal year 2004.  According to the CBP, it will fall far short of that goal.  It estimates that it will only have 3,387 inspection personnel at the many port-of-entry and other facilities that stretch across the 5,525 mile Northern Border with Canada.  This is 1,458 personnel short of the authorized and required level. 

My amendment would provide the $138.5 million estimated to complete the hiring initiative called for in the PATRIOT Act.  The funds would be used to hire an additional 1,458 inspectors to: enhance our ability to conduct inspections of people and goods entering our country to ensure that the people entering the country are authorized to do so; to ensure that the products in the containers are indeed what they are claimed to be; and, that no dangerous foods, meats, or other products are brought into the country.   

Another key area of focus is air cargo security.  Most Americans would be stunned to learn that, under the President's budget proposal, each airline passenger will be screened before boarding a plane.  Each passenger's baggage will be screened before being loaded on a plane.  But commercial cargo on that same plane is left unchecked.   

The amendment would add $100 million to the Transportation Security Administration's budget.  The additional funds proposed in this amendment would accomplish some key immediate objectives while at the same time laying the ground work for a more comprehensive, multi-year plan.  Of this amount, $70 million would be provided to immediately strengthen and expand a number of on-going TSA activities while the remaining $30 million would be used to increase research, development and testing of screening technologies and other systems.  

The $70 million would be used for the following purposes:

• To immediately deploy personnel to the Customs and Border Protection's National Targeting Center to develop rules for targeting suspicious packages on passenger aircraft and, as resources are provided, all-cargo aircraft. 

• To provide $20 million for approximately 125 inspectors to be devoted to cargo screening.  These personnel would be trained to inspect cargo operations, but in keeping with TSA's Aviation Operations strategy to cross-train its personnel, they would be trained for additional duties in future fiscal years. 

• To provide $15 million to advance by one-year the TSA plan to expand canine screening teams for limited cargo screening.  These activities would be co-located at airports currently using TSA canine for screening of U.S. mail, and would work as a complement to EDS screening at smaller locations.

• To provide $25 million to fully deploy the "known shipper" and profiling programs for cargo being carried on passenger aircraft.

• To provide $5 million to update the risk and vulnerability assessments for cargo operations.

• To provide $5 million to launch immediately a pilot program to use explosive detection system (EDS) machines at select locations to screen cargo.

The additional $30 million would be added to the currently budgeted $30 million in TSA's research and development account for air cargo activities - doubling the total amount available for research and development within the air cargo pilot program.

Finally, my amendment provides $80 million to begin addressing the issue of physical security at chemical facilities. 

Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution has called the lack of security at U.S. chemical plants, a "ticking time-bomb."  The General Accounting Office (GAO) has reported that chemical plants remain vulnerable to a terrorist attack.  Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency, the GAO noted that 123 chemical facilities across the country, if attacked, could inflict serious damage and expose millions of people to toxic chemicals and gases.

There are 3,000 chemical facilities in 49 states that, if attacked, could affect more than 10,000 people each.  The GAO found that the federal government has not comprehensively assessed the chemical industry's vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks. 

Nor has the federal government adequately addressed our nuclear vulnerabilities.

The Homeland Security Department is responsible for carrying out comprehensive assessments of the vulnerabilities of the key resources and critical infrastructure of the United States.  The President's National Strategy for Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets identifies chemical plants as part of the Nation's critical infrastructure. 

Unfortunately, this Administration has paid lip service to the issue by saying that the Homeland Security Department will take the lead in managing vulnerability assessments of US chemical facilities, but no funding is identified in this budget to do just that.

When I asked Secretary Ridge who was responsible to secure these facilities, he testified that he thought that securing chemical facilities was the responsibility of the chemical industry.  Frankly, I do not believe our communities would be satisfied to wait for the Administration to wake up to this danger.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that it will cost $80 million to conduct vulnerability assessments for chemical plants.  This amendment would provide those resources. 

Protecting this nation's communities is not easy; it is not cheap; and it cannot wait.  After 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act, the Maritime Transportation Security Act, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act and the President signed them with great fanfare.  But, the President has done little to fulfill the promise of those laws.  Now, the Senate has before it the funding legislation that will either fulfill the promise of those Acts, or continue to leave the nation vulnerable. 

We will hear the same old mantra in opposition to this amendment that money cannot possibly solve the problems facing homeland security.  I agree that money cannot solve all of our problems; but if we fail to invest sufficient funds, we will never even begin to address them.  The gaps in our protections and preparations will continue to grow, gaps that we all know exist.  And, to be sure, if we know where those gaps are, so do the terrorists.  The American people believe that we here in Washington are taking care of the problem.  We must not mislead them.  We must close the gaps.

In just a few weeks, America will pause to remember second anniversary of the moments when the airplanes struck the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania field.  We again will remember the mothers and fathers, the brothers and sisters, the firefighters, the police officers, the ambulance drivers.  We will remember all of those who lost their lives in those tragic moments.

But as we remember their lives, we owe them more than high-sounding rhetoric; we owe them our best judgment.  We owe them rational, responsible action.  We owe them a legacy that may truly save lives and prevent another terrorist attack from happening again.

I urge all Members to be mindful of their solemn duty to, "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" as we debate this important legislation.  I urge Senators to support my amendment.