Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2006

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (Senate - July 14, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 1205

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment proposed by Senator Shelby, Senator Sarbanes, myself, and Senator Schumer to increase the allocation for transit security to $1.1 billion. Let me put that in perspective.

That is roughly 1 week's operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe the American people would look at us and say: If we cannot invest that fraction of money to protect Americans here, how can we so consistently invest that money overseas? I think it is essential, obviously, to protect our forces and our troops and to make those commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I think it is also essential that we protect Americans here at home. That is the essence of our amendment.

We have 6,000 transit systems in the United States. They have 14 million riders every workday. All these transit systems need assistance from the Federal Government to provide increased security, to protect Americans here at home. That is the purpose of our amendment and the purpose of our debate today. The purpose of this bill before the Senate is to provide resources to protect Americans here at home.

Like my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, I was dismayed to hear of the comments by Secretary Chertoff today essentially saying there is no Federal support for transit, that it has to be done by the States. Not only do I object to the conclusion, I question the logic. According to the press report I heard, Secretary Chertoff said the U.S. Government, the Federal Government, has to support airlines because they are almost exclusively a Federal responsibility, but, by contrast, U.S. mass transit systems are largely owned and operated by State and local governments.

Well, I do not know where the Secretary flies in and out of, but in Rhode Island, TF Green Airport, the major airport in the State, is owned by a State corporation. The airlines that fly in and out are private airlines, not Federal airlines. Yet we have provided significant resources--and properly so--to enhance the security of the airline sector in the United States because of several obvious and compelling reasons. The threat is there. After 9/11, we would have been derelict if we did not recognize that. These are key parts of our economy.

Oh, by the way, for most of the airline systems, the terminals are owned by State and local governments, and the operators are private entities, much like transit facilities. Similarly, with transit facilities, the threat is there. After London, we would be derelict if we did not recognize the potential for an attack on our transit systems in the United States and to respond before an attack, not after an attack. That is why we are here today--to respond before any attack could evolve here in the United States, to respond effectively at home.

Indeed, Federal support of transit has been historically a fact of life over the last several decades. Since 1992, we have invested in the order of $68 billion in Federal money to construct and improve our transit systems. There has been Federal money going to local transit systems for construction and improvements. And then to argue--either Mr. Chertoff or others on the floor--it is inconsistent for us to support these systems with security money is illogical and unsustainable.

The threat is there. The need is there. I believe the responsibility should be here to provide some assistance. Again, we could not possibly do all that we must do. There must be cooperation by State and local governments. There has to be. They have responsibilities to their citizens and the passengers on these systems also. But there is a real Federal responsibility, one we will recognize today, I hope, by supporting the Shelby-Sarbanes-Reed amendment.

This is not just a regional issue of one part of the country. Most cities in the United States today have some transit system. Our largest cities have rather elaborate transit systems. Miami has light-rail and bus. Las Vegas is constructing a monorail with private funds to supplement their transit system. All of these are very attractive targets to terrorists.

There is one other disconcerting factor that is emerging after London. We have to be terribly concerned about those al-Qaida operatives, who have been training for years, who have been plotting for years to enter this country, or they may already be here, to conduct some type of terrorist attack. But, unfortunately, after London, we have to be concerned about another category, and that would be the homicidal and suicidal amateur, young men who are influenced by someone else to go ahead and sacrifice themselves. For these relative amateurs, what is a more attractive target today? An airport with a pronounced police presence?

As I drive off to TF Green Airport in Rhode Island, there are always two or three police cars parked outside. It is a modest, medium-sized airport with police officers on patrol. When you go into a lobby, it is full of TSA personnel with screening devices, and you have to take your shoes off, your coat off, to get through the screening to get on an airplane. Also, by the way, since we monitor passenger lists, every airline has an algorithm to determine whether you are subject to special searching. It happens occasionally to me. Is that their target of choice? Or just simply getting on the local bus or going into the local subway today, which is virtually without protection?

So we really have significant responsibilities in this regard. To suggest otherwise is inappropriate. It is wrong. I believe we have to support this amendment. We recognize that over the last several years transit has become one of the most significant targets for these terrorist groups.

After 9/11, in the Banking Committee, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, I convened a hearing and we had witnesses. They came forth. They indicated, first, the lack of preparedness of our transit system for potential attacks by terrorists. Industry experts estimate we would need roughly $6 billion to bring our transit systems up to a level of security that we would be comfortable with. That is one factor.

The other factor is the fact that those resources are not easily obtained by local communities. We understand the pressures for local transit agencies. It is difficult to raise fares. It is difficult to get increased subsidies in State legislatures or local communities. All of that really compromises the ability to move dramatically and aggressively with transit security.

We also asked the General Accounting Office to do an evaluation. Their conclusions were interesting. First, they estimated that a third of the terrorist attacks in the last several years have been directed at mass transit. Again, it is a target of opportunity for these terrorists. And their conclusion speaks volumes. In their words:

[I]nsufficient funding is the most significant obstacle agencies face in trying to make their systems more safe and secure.

Now, in light of that, Senator Sarbanes and myself have repeatedly urged this body to adopt more robust funding for transportation security. We have proposed amendments with respect to supplemental appropriations bills. We have proposed amendments on other bills appropriating funds for the Department of Homeland Security. And we have offered amendments with respect to the National Intelligence Reform Act.

Indeed, the Senate recognized this need quite dramatically just last Congress, where, working with the chairman of the committee, Chairman Shelby, who is, again, leading this great effort, we were able to pass authorizing legislation that would authorize approximately $3.5 billion over several years to begin to deal with this issue of transit security. The authorization recognized our Federal responsibilities. And as my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, pointed out previously, this appropriations bill would be consistent with that authorization, which passed this body unanimously on a bipartisan basis.

So today we are here simply to do what should be obvious to all of us, particularly after the dreadful, horrific events in London. People who think it cannot happen here should think again. People who think this is not our responsibility should think again. We have an obligation, a responsibility. We have already spoken as a Senate last Congress with respect to the authorization. Now it is our obligation to put the resources there to the task. The task is improving the security and the safety of passengers on our transit systems throughout this country.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the Shelby amendment.

Also, Mr. President, I am supporting Senator Byrd's amendment because he, too, recognizes the need for additional security, not only for transit systems but also for intercity train systems. I also recognize that significant need. So I would hope we could come together and vote enthusiastically and appropriately.

The irony here, of course, is we all recognize--and we all pray this will never happen--but if there was a terrorist transit incident, we would be on this floor within hours voting for much more than $1.1 billion. If we act today, promptly and appropriately, we may be able to avert that situation. I hope we can.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov