Appropriations question?  Visit the Committee website.

E-mail
Senator Byrd

Leadership.      Character.      Commitment.

News organizations seeking more information should call Senator Byrd's Communications Office at 202-224-3904.  To hear portions of many of Senator Byrd's speeches, visit the Radio page.  Also, high-resolution photographs are available from many events.

Remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd

September 08, 2004

Making the Investment in Homeland Security

Senator Byrd, the top Democratic member of the Senate Appropriations Homeland Security panel, delivered the following remarks as the Senate started debate on the Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations bill.  That bill funds the Department of Homeland Security, which has four major directorates: Border and Transportation Security (BTS); Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR); Science and Technology (S&T); and Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP).

Senator Byrd has been critical of the Bush White House that talks a great deal about making America safer from attack while rejecting funds aimed at closing the gaps in our homeland security protections.

The Senate now has before it the Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations bill.  I commend Subcommittee Chairman Cochran and his staff for their work on this important legislation.  We had an excellent series of hearings this year that I believe helped the Subcommittee to produce a bill that contains significant improvements to the President's request.

I also commend the thousands of men and women who are on the front lines of homeland security.  We need to give these men and women the tools they need to do their jobs in order to support their strong commitment to serve the nation every hour of every day.

On August 1, 2004, Secretary Tom Ridge increased the threat level for New York, New Jersey, and our nation's capital, to Code Orange, a high risk of terrorist attacks.  This is the sixth time since September 11, 2001, that the threat level has been increased to Code Orange.

On July 14, Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin said, "In the Summer of 2001, we had ample warning of attack, but we didn't know anything about specificity: timing, targets, and so forth.  But we did have conviction that something big was coming at us. We have that same conviction now."

On July 8, Secretary Tom Ridge and FBI Director Robert Mueller announced that Al Qaeda cells are operating in the United States and that multiple, simultaneous attacks are possible before the November Elections. 

In late May, the Attorney General announced that he had credible intelligence from multiple sources that Al Qaeda plans to hit the United States hard in the next few months. 

In the weeks following the Madrid railway bombings, The Washington Post reported that the President informed the Republican congressional leadership that he was all but certain that terrorists would attempt a major attack on the United States before the November Elections.

It is past time that we begin debating this legislation as we approach the three-year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and as Congress reviews the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.  The Commission concluded that the terrorists who are intent on doing us harm are so cunning and agile, and sufficiently knowledgeable about this country that they would schedule their attacks when Congress was in session.  These reports also indicate that on September 11, 2001, our government agencies were not prepared to deter or respond to such attacks.  I believe that we are still not prepared. 

The bill before the Senate provides $33.1 billion, a level that is $896 million above the President's request.  Regrettably, the allocation that is available for homeland security programs is inadequate.  This is not a criticism of Chairman Cochran, nor is it a criticism of full Committee Chairman Ted Stevens. 

The fact is that limits placed on homeland security funding by the Bush White House constrain our ability to address known threats to the safety of the American people.

In response to the danger of terror attacks so often invoked by the President, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the FBI Director, it is hard to believe that the President would  not request supplemental appropriations for securing our mass transit systems, for screening airline passengers for explosives, for inspecting more containers coming into our ports, for increasing inspections of air cargo, or for increasing the number of Federal Air Marshals.  When the threat level was elevated to Code Orange, why did the President not seek a supplemental?  Why does he not amend his fiscal year 2005 budget request to increase his anemic two-percent proposed increase for the Department of Homeland Security?  Why in Heaven's name?

Why, indeed, does the Department seem satisfied with a go-slow, business-as-usual approach to homeland security?  The Department issued advice to mass transit systems for improving security, but provided no funding to increase law enforcement presence, or to deploy canine teams.  Despite a six-percent increase in airline flights this year, the Department has allowed the number of Federal Air Marshals to shrink precipitously, and the President's budget would result in even deeper reductions next year.  Despite concerns about the safety of our borders, the Department, in March, imposed a hiring freeze on Customs officers and immigration inspectors.  What could possibly drive such decisions?

Millions of dollars that Congress approved for port security, bus security, and hazardous materials grants eleven months ago have not been awarded.  Millions of dollars that Congress approved in February of 2003, eighteen months ago, for the purchase of additional emergency equipment for the twenty-eight Urban Search and Rescue teams have not been spent.   Having this money sit in Washington, D.C., does not make American citizens any safer.   

As a result of the President's decision not to seek supplemental appropriations, the Transportation Security Administration was forced to cut funding for training passenger and baggage screeners and for purchasing equipment for airport checkpoints.  I am one Senator who believes that this Administration is playing with fire. 

It has been two and a half years since Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, tried to blow up an aircraft in flight over the ocean with explosives that he carried onto the aircraft.  Just two weeks ago, two Russian planes were simultaneously blown out of the sky.  Preliminary investigations indicate that the planes were destroyed by explosives carried onto the planes by passengers.  The 9/11 Commission concluded that we must give priority attention to screening passengers for explosives.  Are we any closer to deploying a national system that could check passengers for explosives?   The answer is no.

It has been over two and a half years since the Congress passed the USA Patriot Act and set a goal of tripling the Border Patrol and Customs officers on the northern border.   Have we met the goal?  Again, no.  We are 1,428 officers short of the goal. 

It has been nearly three years since 9/11, when police and firemen in the World Trade Center could not talk to each other on their radios.  As the 9/11 Commission concluded, many first responders failed to get the order to evacuate the Towers, causing hundreds of them to perish.  Are we any closer to providing police and firemen across the nation with interoperable communications equipment?  Sadly, the answer is no.

The EPA has estimated that there are 100 chemical plants in this country, each of which, if attacked, could harm over 1 million people.  In February of 2003, the National Infrastructure Protection Center, which is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, issued a threat warning that Al Qaeda may attempt to launch conventional attacks on nuclear or chemical plants.  A year and a half later, has the Department actually hardened the security of the chemical plants?  You guessed it, no.

I simply do not understand why this Administration thinks that homeland security is not important enough to fund.  The President campaigns on being the best candidate to protect this nation, yet each and every budget that he sends to Capitol Hill shortchanges the safety and security of the American people.

Similarly, I am very concerned that we are about to make the same mistakes with our nation's intelligence services.

The 9-11 Commission offered a large number of proposals to change our intelligence system, each of which needs to be carefully evaluated.  Some may work and some may not, but adopting them all lock, stock, and barrel without carefully scrutinizing each proposal simply to beat the political clock is a surefire recipe for disaster.  We should not create sheer chaos and bureaucratic turf battles within the very structure that is trying to ferret out another attack before it happens.

For instance, last month, the President signed three Executive Orders to begin implementing the 9-11 Commission reforms.  But the Bush Administration has not sent a single budget amendment to the Capitol to pay for those changes.  Where is the money to operate the new National Counterterrorism Center that the President created by Executive Order?  And if there is no new money, isn't the President just reshuffling the deck chairs?  Is this the same old story being played out? 

This is what we have seen with homeland security.  There is great fanfare when the President signs a homeland security authorization bill.  But then the appropriations bills and amendments are rejected by the Bush White House as "extraneous spending" -- the very amendments that would keep the promise of the Administration's fanfare.  When are we going to break this cycle of false promises to the people of this nation?

Our intelligence services have problems that must be addressed.  We have far too few people on the ground in key places on the globe.  We have terribly inadequate intelligence technologies.  We do not have sufficient back-up facilities for our one-of-a-kind intelligence assets.  The FBI Director has told every person who would listen about the critical vulnerabilities that he must address to meet today's threats.  Yet, instead of taking on these tasks which we know must be done, this government seems all too eager to satisfy itself with shifting boxes and creating bureaucracies.

In the legislation before the Senate today, we try to break that cycle.  The $896 million increase that is in the Senate bill will help to address some of the gaps in the President's homeland security budget.  The bill includes $150 million for mass transit security, none of which was requested by the President.  Instead of cutting port security by 62 percent, as proposed by the President, we are providing at least a modest increase over last year for port security.  We are providing $98 million more than the President requested for replacing the Coast Guard ships and planes that are deteriorating at a dangerous pace.  Funds are included to stop the loss of Federal Air Marshals.  Additional funding is also provided for air cargo security and explosives-detection equipment and for additional radiation detectors that can be deployed at our ports.

We continue to fund effective programs that the President wanted to cut or reorganize, such as the fire grants program and the All Hazards Emergency Management Performance Grants program. 

In addition, the bill contains an important protection for the privacy rights of Americans.  I thank Chairman Cochran for his support of my amendment in subcommittee concerning CAPPS II, the Department's proposed new airline passenger profiling system.  By restating the language that was in the 2004 Act, this bill allows testing of the project to move forward, but ensures that the system will not be deployed until GAO confirms that privacy rights will be protected, that an appeals process is in place, that the data in the system is accurate, and that the data is protected from unauthorized use.  On July 15, Secretary Ridge announced that CAPPS II, in its current form, would not be deployed.  I am encouraged that he finally got the message that the Congress has been sending him for over a year about balancing our need for protection with our rights to privacy.  On August 26, the Department announced a replacement program called Secure Flight, but details are not yet available.  I look forward to hearing the details of the plan so that we can determine whether the privacy rights of our citizens are protected.

With the limited funds that were made available to the Subcommittee under our allocation, Chairman Cochran has produced a good bill.   

However, this nation faces a turning point, as we are challenged, once again, by the threat of attack on our shores.  We know that terrorists live among us.  Yet, we do not know where they will strike, or when.  What we have are warnings from the Attorney General, from the FBI Director, and even from the President that Al Qaeda is planning an attack here within our shores.  Are we prepared to prevent or respond to such an attack?  Look at the funding levels and decide.

The bill that is before the Senate contains an increase of about five percent above the FY 2004 level.  The President is certain that America is going to be attacked again soon, yet the Senate is debating a bill that provides for a five-percent increase.  If an attack occurs, it will be on the head of this White House to explain why they pinched pennies with homeland security.

Congress has a responsibility to protect the nation.  The country's serious vulnerabilities demand that we invest dollars where they are most needed.  

That is why I intend to offer an amendment to this bill to target increased funding to those programs that have the most impact on well-documented vulnerabilities, such as rail security, port security, chemical security, fire and other first-responder programs, and border protection.

Mr. President, more than 95 percent of the nation's overseas cargo moves through our ports.  The U.S. Coast Guard estimates that a one-month closure of a major U.S. port would cost our national economy $60 billion.  We inspect only nine percent of the cargo containers that come into our seaports.  The 9/11 Commission concluded that we must do better, and I agree.  In order to help secure those ports, the Coast Guard estimates that $1.1 billion is required to implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act in the first year, and $5.4 billion over ten years.  Yet, the President requested only $46 million for port security grants, and this bill only provides $150 million.  We need to do more.

On March 11 of this year, terrorists attacked commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, killing nearly 200 innocent passengers.  The President has not requested a dime for mass transit security.  We should be investing in additional guards, better training, additional canine teams and better surveillance.  Chairman Cochran has initiated a $150 million program for mass transit security, but the Senate Banking Committee has reported a bill authorizing over $3.5 billion for FY 2005 for mass transit security and the Senate Commerce Committee has reported a bill authorizing $1.2 billion for rail and Amtrak security.  Americans use public transportation over 32 million times per workday.  We need to do more.

The Hart-Rudman report on the terrorist threat in this country recommended a $98 billion investment in equipping and training for our first responders over the next five years.  Yet, this bill cuts first responder funding below the levels enacted last year.  The Committee report calls on the Department to finally issue federal guidelines to assist state and local governments in making wise purchases with first responder funding, but guidelines are not a substitute for money.  The bill would reduce first responder funding by $778 million from the FY 2004 level, including cuts in the fire grant program.  That is just not acceptable.

Mr. President, this is a good bill but it simply does not do enough.  My amendment will not simply throw money at homeland security.  It will address specific, known vulnerabilities.  It will fund a number of the security weaknesses identified by the 9/11 Commission. 

Last week, the President said, "This election will also determine how America responds to the continuing danger of terrorism -- and you know where I stand. Three days after September 11, I stood where Americans died in the ruins of the Twin Towers. Workers in hard hats were shouting to me, 'Whatever it takes.'  A fellow grabbed me by the arm and he said, 'Do not let me down.'  Since that day I wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. I will never relent in defending America, whatever it takes."

Whatever it takes.  Well, Mr. President, it takes more than empty promises to protect this country from attack.  If President Bush meant what he said last week, he would not accept a bill that cuts funds for first responders, that leaves first responders unable to communicate, that leaves airline passengers worrying about whether a fellow passenger has brought explosives on board or that fails to adequately invest in securing our ports, chemical facilities, and trains.   

Again, I commend Chairman Cochran for his work on this important legislation.  I encourage Members to bring their amendments to the floor so that they can be considered and so that we can bring this bill to final passage and then on to conference.  We need to get a good freestanding bill to the President's desk.  We have waited far too long.

# # #