Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2006
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (Senate - July 14, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, this amendment seeks to strengthen the borders, which is a good goal, but at an awful price. It could take 24 percent of our money away from our first responders--police, firefighters, emergency technicians. In every one of the States we had an argument the other day that we don't get enough money for these people, that whether you are from Wyoming or Kansas or Maine or New York, there is not enough money for our first responders. There is nothing that says we have to rob Peter to pay Paul. That is the problem here. It is not in strengthening the borders. It is in taking money away from the people every day who defend us and, since 9/11, have new duties. That is why both Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd, the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, are against this amendment. There is bipartisan opposition to it because our police, our firefighters, our medical technicians are the ones who need the help. Don't take money away from localities to put into this Federal pot.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment deals with air cargo. We have done a very fine job in making our air travel safer when it comes to passengers. They are checked very well to prevent them from smuggling not only metal but now explosives onto planes.
However, most passenger planes--more than half--carry cargo in the belly of the plane. That cargo is not inspected. So somebody who, God forbid, would want to do damage could smuggle explosives into the cargo and detonate it and do just as much damage as a passenger.
This amendment very simply provides $302 million to provide for air cargo security, $200 million for existing air cargo security countermeasures, $2 million for a pilot program on hardened containers, and $100 million for research.
We have learned since 9/11 that terrorists look for our weakest pressure point. Cargo is our weakest pressure point on air travel, and I urge support of the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, what I have been attempting to do in some of these amendments is look for our weakest pressure points because the terrorists also know where we have done things, and they know where we have not done enough. A place where we are completely weak is truck security. We have seen that terrorists have used trucks to hurt us--in New York City at the World Trade Center in 1993, of course in Oklahoma City a few years later, and in Europe and around the world as well. A truck loaded with explosives can do terrible damage at a football stadium, at a skyscraper or another place that is heavily populated.
The interesting thing is that technology does exist to track trucks the way we track airplanes. It is GPS. It is not very expensive. But since the truck market is so fragmented, no one company does it alone, even though many companies have GPS systems in their trucks, mainly for theft.
We provide just $70 million, not very much, to develop and implement a system for identification and tracking only of hazardous material trucks--those that carry gasoline, explosives, chlorine--that could be used for terrible purposes. If we can't afford $70 million to do this--and I disagree with my friend from New Hampshire, we are not doing enough now--then we ought to look into the mirror. I hope this amendment will be supported.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I point out initially that this amendment exceeds the budget allocation of the committee and is a deficit spending item. More important than that, the Department of Homeland Security does not yet have the technology nor the pilot programs capable of doing this. They will be pursuing this course of action when they are ready to do this in an effective and comprehensive way, and we will fund it.
Again, there dollars are being put in a problem that there is no solution for at this time. The Department has not asked for money for this because they know they are not capable of handling it yet. We will certainly pursue this activity, if it is appropriate, as the Department gets their pilot programs in place and shows that they can handle this type of program. Right now it is premature. In addition, of course, it is deficit spending.
I hope Senators support the budget point of order and vote against waiving it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, what I have been attempting to do in some of these amendments is look for our weakest pressure points because the terrorists also know where we have done things, and they know where we have not done enough. A place where we are completely weak is truck security. We have seen that terrorists have used trucks to hurt us--in New York City at the World Trade Center in 1993, of course in Oklahoma City a few years later, and in Europe and around the world as well. A truck loaded with explosives can do terrible damage at a football stadium, at a skyscraper or another place that is heavily populated.
The interesting thing is that technology does exist to track trucks the way we track airplanes. It is GPS. It is not very expensive. But since the truck market is so fragmented, no one company does it alone, even though many companies have GPS systems in their trucks, mainly for theft.
We provide just $70 million, not very much, to develop and implement a system for identification and tracking only of hazardous material trucks--those that carry gasoline, explosives, chlorine--that could be used for terrible purposes. If we can't afford $70 million to do this--and I disagree with my friend from New Hampshire, we are not doing enough now--then we ought to look into the mirror. I hope this amendment will be supported.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I am here to address the various amendments we have on rail security, but I also must speak about something that occurred in the last few hours related to mass security.
Mr. President, I know Secretary Chertoff. I was proud to support his nomination. I was proud to support his nomination to the Federal bench. He is a smart man, he is a thoughtful man, he is a capable man. But when I read the statements that he made this morning, I was aghast. These are some of the most appalling comments that I have heard coming from any Government official in a long time.
First, Secretary Chertoff said that the responsibility for transit security must rest with the localities. And then he said the following:
``The truth of the matter is that a fully loaded plane with jet fuel, a commercial airliner has the capacity to kill 3,000 people,'' Chertoff told Associated Press reporters and editors.
And then he continues:
A bomb in a subway car may kill 30 people. When you start thinking about your priorities, you are going to think about making sure you don't have the catastrophic thing first.
I would like Mr. Chertoff to ask the people in London if what happened last week was minor in passing or the people in Madrid--the chaos, the loss of life. To say what happens on the subways because it might only kill 30 people is less of a priority for this Federal Government than what might happen in the air is an appalling statement that leaves me aghast. I am asking Mr. Chertoff immediately to withdraw his statement and apologize, apologize to those who have lost loved ones and apologize to every transit user in New York and around the country.
Our responsibility, I would tell the Secretary, the responsibility of the Federal Government is to prevent terrorism in the homeland wherever it occurs--in the air, on the rails, in the water. To simply wash the Federal Government's hands of responsibility at a time when this Government is cutting back on mass transit funding and the localities have very little money is an abdication of responsibility.
I know I am speaking in strong terms, but if Mr. Chertoff professes these views, then I am not sure he should continue as the Secretary of Homeland Security. And as I said, I respect him. He is a smart man, he is a bright man. But I could hardly believe it when I read this and when a reporter asked me about it that it came out of his mouth. When I sat down with Mr. Chertoff when he was the nominee, he didn't voice any of these views. In fact, Senator Clinton and I took a tour with him of Grand Central Station, and he seemed fully to understand the needs of mass transit in terms of homeland security. And now we have a 180-degree about turn?
I hope and pray that Secretary Chertoff misspoke, because every one of our citizens on transit--whether in the air, on the water, on rail, or on the road--is our responsibility to keep safe and prevent terrorism from afflicting them.
If this administration has embarked on a new policy which says that we will protect people in the air but not on the rails and washes its hands of that responsibility, then they ought to let America know, and they will be facing the fight of their life on this floor and in this country.
Here we are, debating amendments to try to get some more money for homeland security on the rails because we know we are so short of dollars, and at the same time we are hearing from the Secretary of Homeland Security that our rails, our commuters don't need that money. I would like Mr. Chertoff to go to Grand Central Station or Penn Station or to the Atlantic Avenue Station in Brooklyn or the Woodlawn Station in the Bronx and tell the commuters there that Washington doesn't have the responsibility to protect them from terrorism. Let him face them directly and say that to them. Let him go to them and tell them that it is all up to the local governments even though we know we have declared since 9/11 that the war on terror is largely a Federal responsibility.
So it is really that I rise to speak about this subject with some sadness because, as I said, I like Mr. Chertoff, I have respect for Mr. Chertoff. And, again, I would repeat my plea. Secretary Chertoff, please retract your remarks. Apologize to those who use mass transit and the rails and let us agree that the Federal Government has a real responsibility to protect the rail riders of this country from terrorism.
Now, in my remaining time I would simply like to address the amendments. I salute my colleagues from Alabama and Maryland and Rhode Island for their amendments. We have learned since London and Madrid that transit seems to be the terrorists' target of choice.
Madrid may have been our first wakeup call and London was our second. We ignore it at our peril.
Mass transit systems are open. They bring in lots of commuters all at once. And they prove to be, unfortunately, a tempting target for terrorists.
What is our responsibility? It is not what Mr. Chertoff says. It is, rather, to step up to the plate and provide funding as we do in the air. For every air passenger, we spend $7 on homeland security. For every rail passenger, we spend a penny. That is out of whack. The amendment by Senators Shelby and Sarbanes, Reed, myself, and many others moves to address that.
We need to do so many things in mass transit. I have called my folks in New York. We hope in the longer run we can develop detection devices that, like smoke detectors, can tell when explosives are brought on a train or in railroad stations, whether on someone's person or in a knapsack. But until we do, their No. 1 need is for explosive-sniffing dogs. They are desperately short. Yet the President's proposal does not allow that to happen. There will be a colloquy that urges that to happen.
We are short of transit patrolmen. I have been told, for instance, on a heavily populated commuter line there is only one police officer who patrols about 10 stations that handle tens of thousands of commuters every day over a 30- or 40-mile expansion of commuter rail on Long Island.
Structure changes are needed to strengthen subways and tunnels so that, God forbid, if a terrorist attack occurs maybe the structures will withstand it. We need signage and help for the tunnels to have escape routes and ventilation to minimize loss of life if terrorism, God forbid, occurs.
I rise in support of this badly needed amendment. We have neglected mass transit when it comes to homeland security. We are trying to redress that in a bipartisan amendment.
I also mention, of course, Senator Byrd's amendment which deals with transit and rail, which I will support. Senator Gregg's amendment, which takes $200 million out of port security and adds it to transit and rail, is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The terrorists look for our weakest pressure point and strike there. Rail at this point is our weakest pressure point. We should strengthen it. To take money from ports, where we have not done the job, and put it in rail does not make much sense because if we strengthen air security, they will look to the rails. If we strengthen rail security, they will look to the ports. If we strengthen port security, they will look to the trucks.
As the war on terror overseas must be fought on many fronts, so must the war on terror at home. To pick, as Mr. Chertoff does, one place where the Federal Government is going to put its efforts and ignore the others, is not doing a service to our citizens. Therefore, we must do more to strengthen security on the rails.
The best thing we can do to show the Nation that Mr. Chertoff's statement was not what America needs is to vote for the Shelby-Sarbanes-Reed amendment and the Byrd amendment, as well.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to compliment my friend from Kansas for his remarks. While I am not sure he is right, he is doing what we should be doing on this floor. We presented an amendment on a serious issue, and he is debating that amendment. He is saying: Here is a place in the amendment that I think is wrong, and maybe you ought to change it.
That is how a debate ought to go. But the response of my colleagues who have cosponsored the other amendment is not that at all. It is not to debate a serious issue that involves national security. It is, rather, to create a smokescreen--``You stick it to us, we will stick it to you''--when we all know that the issue of who leaked this information is a serious issue. We did not say it is a serious issue. President Bush did. George Tenet did. The original investigation I was involved in creating because I called George Tenet and said: This is an affront to all CIA agents. He agreed, and called the Justice Department and said: Do an investigation. It is serious stuff.
What do we get in response? A smokescreen. It is almost sort of the childish sticking out your tongue back at somebody. Debate the issue. I can understand why you do not want to debate the issue. Somebody in the White House did something seriously wrong. Does anyone have any doubt that if this occurred under a Democratic President that you would want to debate it, as you should? The opposition party is intended in this Republic to be a check.
As I said, I originally called for this investigation. I worked with Deputy Attorney General Comey to get an independent counsel who was above reproach. I never mentioned a word about any individual. Because there was none. There was all this swirl about Karl Rove. You did not hear the senior Senator from New York talking about it. You, rather, heard me say: Let's get to the bottom of this.
But in the last 2 or 3 weeks, we have seen some serious and indisputable evidence. We do not know if it meets the criminal standard. That is why I have not called for Karl Rove to step down. But we do know, without any doubt, that security was compromised. You cannot hide behind the argument: Well, I mentioned the husband and not the wife and, therefore, I didn't breach some kind of security.
While the criminal law standard says you had to know whether that wife was classified, whether Ms. Plame, Agent Plame was classified, that is not the standard in terms of entitling someone with the privilege of hearing national security secrets.
If you cannot keep those secrets, if you disclose those secrets, for whatever motivation, and particularly a venal one, if that was the case, political retribution, you do not deserve to continue to hear those secrets. That is what the amendment offered by my colleagues from Nevada and Michigan and West Virginia simply says. It is the right thing to do.
The President should have done it without any amendment. If someone leaks a name--and it looks more and more as though it was Karl Rove; and we know for an undisputed fact--his lawyer admitted it--he stepped right up to the line--we don't know if criminally he stepped over it or not; that will be for Mr. Fitzgerald to determine, not for us--then he should not have that security clearance.
You are right, my colleagues, we should not have to be here today. The President should have done this on his own. And if you think the amendment is poorly drafted, as my good friend from Kansas does, that is what this place is all about. Come and tell us why and how we can change it and make it better.
But if the response is simply to say, ``Oh, we're going to try to create a smokescreen or maybe intimidate you on the other side,'' that is not worthy of what this body is about, at least in its better and finer moments.
So, my colleagues, I would hope we could have a 100-to-nothing vote on the amendment by the Senator from Nevada. Yes, it is embarrassing that it happened in the White House, and they are Members of your party. But it happened. No one disputes it happened. I do not think a single American thinks that nothing should be done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. I urge support of the Reid amendment and rejection of the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/