Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004 - Continued

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004—CONTINUED

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. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. REED. I yield.

Mr. BYRD. Let me express my appreciation to the Senator for his support of the amendment; more than that, for his steadfast support of the appropriations as we have dealt with this problem time and again on the floor.

The Senator, as is Senator Clinton, is a member of the Armed Services Committee, and his support for this amendment tells a lot. Here is the support of two Senators on the Armed Services Committee. They have been on there quite a while. They have seniority.

The Senator from Rhode Island is an outstanding member of the committee. I deeply appreciate his support of this amendment. I appreciate his patriotism and his eloquence and support of preparing this country against such attacks as it was subjected to on September 11, 2001.

Mr. REED. I yield the floor.