Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

AMENDMENT NO. 1343

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will listen to this because maybe we can get this accepted without a vote. As many in the Chamber know, as does certainly the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, to me one of the greatest holes, one of the greatest weaknesses we face as we try to defend our homeland is we are not doing enough to prevent the smuggling of a nuclear weapon into this country. Our greatest nightmare would be that some evil group of people get ahold of a nuclear weapon and put it in a container in a ship and send it to our shores. The devastation that would ensue would be enormous. Unfortunately, there is very little to prevent that from happening now.

We are trying to tighten our general cargo system, but it is not enough in terms of preventing a nuclear weapon from coming into this country.

I sought experts shortly after 9/11 and said, How do we prevent this from happening? They said, There is good news and bad news. The good news is nuclear devices are detectable because they emit something called gamma rays, which pass through everything. The bad news is the only practical detection devices right now are Geiger counters and the Geiger counter has to be held 2 or 3 feet from the object.

You can't go on every container and put a Geiger counter near each crate. It will bring commerce to a standstill. But, they said, the cyclotrons at Brookhaven National Lab and Argonne, our national energy labs, detect radiation 60, 70, 80 feet away. The trouble is, the devices are not practical. They are delicate, they cannot be bounced around, and they are large.
But, they said, it should not be too difficult to practicalize these devices and then place them on every crane that loads or unloads a container. It would emit a noise if, God forbid, a nuclear weapon were on board that container, and we could stop it.

Everyone agrees this is a good thing to do. The problem is finding the resources to get it done. So last year the Senate voted for $150 million to do this. But when we got back from the conference, I think $10 million was left in, which was not close to enough.

I have proposed in this amendment that we add another $70 million to general homeland security research, solely for the purpose of developing these nuclear detection devices. But if my good friend from Mississippi thinks we do not want to add any money into the bill, I would be satisfied with earmarking $70 million of the existing research funds for this very purpose. Although it would take money away from other research, it would not increase the overall amount.

I cannot imagine research that is more needed. As I mentioned, I would be happy to substitute the second amendment which does not raise the overall price and earmarks the money.

All I can say is. God forbid a nuclear device is smuggled into this country; it would be our worst nightmare. The fact we can do something about it and the fact we are not doing enough about it to me is a dereliction of our duty, of our responsibility to make our citizens safe. I want to be able to say to my constituents—I think every Member here does—that every container entering this country has no nuclear weapon in it. By developing technologies like passive detectors, we can make sure that happens. There is not a question as to whether this is feasible. It is not just spending the money and putting it down a black hole. The $10 million that was allocated last year, even though this House voted for $150 million, is too little.
The $70 million—I would rather have it be higher, but the bottom line is this. Terrorists know our weaknesses. Right now, let's hope none of them has a nuclear weapon. But, if, God forbid, they did—if, God forbid, they did, they could bring it into this country through one of our ports and have a darn good chance, an all-too-high chance of succeeding.

So I say to my colleagues, there may be no amendment to this bill more important than this one to the future safety of our citizens, our beautiful and wonderful 280 million Americans; maybe no amendment that we vote on this year. This is a quiet issue. It has not garnered that much attention. But it is a vital issue. This should show whether Government can work. Because this is what we should be doing.

I hope my friend from Mississippi will accept this amendment. I would rather not call a vote on it. As I said, I would be willing to substitute for this the offset. But we cannot delay any further. Every year we delay makes it more likely that this horrible situation could occur.

I do not want to be in a "what if" mode. What if, God forbid—God forbid—a nuclear weapon were exploded in this country? And what if the next morning we said to ourselves: Why didn't we do something about it when we knew we could?

With that, I will relinquish the floor and hope my colleague from Mississippi and others could work something out here so we could come to a compromise and get this amendment accepted in the legislation.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I was listening to the Senator from New York to be sure I understood what he was suggesting. He said if I didn't agree to one thing he would offer another thing and I am not sure what he sent to the desk and that is why I decided to go look. From what I understand, the Senator has offered an amendment that would—well, the reading of this seems to add $70 million, or earmark $70 million from the amount made available for research and development to the Secretary of Homeland Security, to award grants to national laboratories, private and nonprivate organizations, institutions of higher education, and other entities for the support of research and development of technologies that can be used to secure the ports of the United States.

What he then talked about was a technology he would require to be developed with funds in this amendment to detect nuclear explosive devices that were attempted to be brought into ports or brought into the United States.

The point is, we already have in the bill $55.2 million for a technology center which conducts the research and engages in the work that leads to the development of such protective devices.

I am confused by what the Senator said he is trying to do and what he sent to the desk. I have to be honest.

Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. COCHRAN. They are not all the same thing. That is my point.

I would be happy to yield.

Mr. SCHUMER. I have taken the first amendment and added $70 million in general homeland security research. But it requires the research to go into port security. The language is not specific. I can make it specific. It was intended to be for the research into these devices. We can get together and make it specific. I don't know why we didn't. We probably should have. But it just earmarks it for port security as opposed to general security.

The second amendment, which I haven't sent to the desk, doesn't increase the overall amount for research and development.
But this one does. This would increase it by $70 million. It is not taken from the rest. But the other one earmarks $70 million of the existing $130 million for this very purpose.

If the problem is making the language more specific, I am willing to do that.

I am not familiar. I ask my colleague a question: Where does the $55 million that he is refers to go? As I understand it, there is $10 million we passed last year. But I would be happy to look at that. I have no pride of authorship. I just want to get these devices done.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator has completed his statement, I would be happy to continue. The committee is recommending in the appropriations bill $130.2 million for research and development. The way that is broken down even further as explained in our committee report on page 31, $55.2 million goes to a Technological Center for Research and Development. That is where the kind of work the Senator is talking about is done. An additional $45 million goes to the next generation of explosive device systems. The third category of funding is $30 million which goes to an air cargo pilot program.

The point is the Senator is coming in and adding $70 million to this account without an offset. That is going to violate the Budget Act. Because we have been unable to accept any amendments that are drafted like that, I would be constrained to make a point of order because the amendment would violate the Budget Act. That would be my intention if the Senator insisted on this amendment. If the motion to waive the Budget Act fails, the Senator can offer his alternative.

I do not know how else to proceed to consider the other amendment unless we deal with this one first. I just wanted to make that point.

Work is being done now. I am advised that work is being done now on the kind of research that would lead to, we hope, eventual deployment of the kind of system about which the Senator is talking. But we are unable to earmark that kind of money in this bill without eliminating funding for other research activities which are also underway.

We can't do everything at once. There is just not enough money. That is the rationale for having to make some choices and to allocate the funds as the committee has chosen to do in this bill.

If the amendment the Senator is offering does violate the Budget Act, I am going to have to make a point of order. And the Senator can move to waive it. The Senator can move to waive it, if he so chooses. He has that right.

Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. COCHRAN. I have yielded the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I first make a point. Yes, there is $55 million for this, but none of that has to be used for nuclear security devices. There is no allocation for any research to be done for this very important part of research.

I have to say, with all due respect, that there are lots of different kinds of research which will be done that don't guarantee any. Last year, we put $10 million in for this, but the Senate voted for $150 million.

But I ask my colleague a question: First, where is this institute? I am not even familiar with it.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the technological center is in Atlantic City, NJ.

Mr. SCHUMER. Second, I ask my colleague if we were not to violate the Budget Act but, say, allocate $70 million or some sum within the $130 million for research that should specifically go for nuclear detection devices, would my friend from Mississippi be willing to support something like that?

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I would not. I am not going to tell an agency of this Homeland Security Department how to do research or where to put the priorities for research. Some of the information about detection of these devices I am sure is classified. I am not going to get into the business of having a public debate over exactly how much is being spent on that.
We have asked the directorate if funds are being used to conduct this research, and they say that the research is being done.
But, frankly, I don't have a dollar figure that I can tell you as to the exact amount which would be spent in this next calendar year on this subject. But it is less than $5.2 million. We know that.

Mr. SCHUMER. There is $10 million we allocated last year for this. The Senate voted for $150 million. There was no subcommittee at that point on homeland security. Senator Stevens supported it. But when it came back from conference, it only had $10 million in it.

I think my colleague would understand that this kind of research should not be done in some new institute. There are experts who have done this already at our national energy research laboratories. They can detect radiation. It is just that the device has to be practical, and it is not right now. That is why we need this specific quick allocation.

But if my colleague from Mississippi doesn't want to allocate any specific money for this purpose, whether we violate the Budget Act or not, I guess there is no compromise we can reach.

I would be happy to yield to my colleague.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. First, I commend the Senator for this very thoughtful and very important amendment. I wondered whether the Senator was aware that though we have a research facility in Atlantic City in my State, it is primarily focused on aviation. While they do explosive research, I believe the Senator would agree that this is more intent on examining the result of nuclear explosives—the kind of detonation that would really wipe out a whole port or a major facility.

Is that what the Senator wants to establish—that it is port specific and maritime specific and that we ought to get on with it to protect our ports?

Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for that point.

I say to my friend from Mississippi that it is probably likely that none of the $55 million of this specific institute, which I am sure is doing a very good job on air research, will do this. Then I say to my colleague—I say to everybody here—to not put any money into this when this is the greatest danger we face is a dereliction of our responsibility. I am willing to offset.
I am willing to work. But the $55 million that is in this institute is not going to go to the kind of research we are talking about. Even if they were to give the money to this institute to do it, it would have to reinvent the wheel when our existing research laboratories can do this.

Last year, we had sort of a consensus that we had to do something, but in conference we lost the dollars. We are taking a step backward here. This is what everyone worried about after 9/11—that we would become complacent. From all of the moneys in the budget, we can't find $70 million to do research to deal with perhaps the greatest danger that faces us. That is wrong. That is something we, hopefully, will never regret. But we may.

I say to my colleague from Mississippi that this Atlantic City research center, as my friend Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey said, is part of the FAA. That has nothing to do with the research we are talking about. It does a good job.

I ask my colleague, where is this research going to be done?

I say to all of my colleagues, if we don't do this amendment, and we say it is because of the Budget Act, my goodness, we just passed $350 billion in tax cuts without even talking about the Budget Act. And we can't spend $70 million to make our homeland secure from the greatest danger that would face us—greater than biological weapons, greater than chemical weapons? What is the matter with us?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If there was a manifest that said "nuclear weapon on its way," could you imagine something like that? We have all these containers. These are hidden boxes. You don't know what kind of cargo is in them. To me, it is one of the more susceptible areas for a terrorist attack of major magnitude. Thus, I ask the Senator, do you know from what part of the budget the $70 million you are proposing be used, which is out of $29 billion and is a very small fraction when you consider the risks that might ensue?

Mr. SCHUMER. Right.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I understand that is where the Senator is going with this amendment.

Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for the question. Obviously, this is a real problem. Obviously, we should be doing something about it. And somehow, because the committee, in its wisdom, said $55 million for this and $40 million for this and $10 million for this, and we can't break the Budget Act, we should ignore this problem. Why the heck do we have amendments on the floor? No one objects to the substance, it is just finding room for it.

I would just, once again, say to my colleagues, I plead with you; this is not a political issue for me at all; this is about the
safety of America. Let us find some way to find some money.

I am not saying the committee should be omniscient and should have thought of everything. This is one area on which I have spent a lot of time. I can assure every one of my colleagues that the money could be well spent. Every expert says it can be done. And every expert who looks at our budget says it is not being done now or is being done at such a slow pace that we are almost inviting people to harm us.

So I am disappointed—I have to tell you, I am disappointed, whether we violate the Budget Act or not, because I am willing to go either way—that we cannot find one thin dime more for this vital research.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in addition to the research account that the Senator seeks to amend with the amendment he submitted and which is at the desk, the Department of Homeland Security is engaged in a wide range of broad-based research activity under the auspices of the Science and Technology Directorate.

The Transportation Security Administration funding is affected by the amendment at the desk. There is a lot of other research that is being done relating to radiological and nuclear countermeasures. I am convinced that much of what is being done in terms of developing new ways of dealing with the problem the Senator describes is being done under the auspices of the Science and Technology Directorate.

Here are some examples of the work that has been funded over the last 3 years and is being funded again this year in this bill: sensor research and development. This is for radiological and nuclear countermeasures. In 2003, there was $10 million appropriated and enacted; $40 million reprogrammed for this account in fiscal year 2003. Mr. President, $71 million is contained in the Senate bill for sensor R&D. So over that 3-year period—$10 million, $40 million, $71 million—you have $121 million that has been appropriated for sensor R&D.

Also, there are other accounts, such as detection systems product improvement, demonstrations, remediation and
consequence management—a wide range of other activities. The total for radiological and nuclear countermeasures for this year alone, in the bill we have presented, is $131 million. In 2003, the total was $75 million. So we have almost doubled the amount for the science and technology research that is being done in this particular area. So this isn't the only account that is available.

Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. SCHUMER. I am not aware, in all the research my friend from Mississippi read off, that any is being done for the specific thing I talked about, which is to develop not just a nuclear sensor somewhere but nuclear sensors that can go on cranes when they load and unload containers.

Every expert who looks at how they would do a nuclear device here, how they would explode one going into this country—it is very hard to do it on a plane; they are heavy; they can't do it on a truck very easily—you do it in the big containers that come through the ports.

I don't see anything, from what the Senator has read off, to show this is being done. I would be happy to delay for a bit. We could do some research and call Homeland Security and see if they are doing this. Just to read off a number of accounts and say there is research being done, and maybe some of it is being done in the area I am talking about—which I know everyone thinks is important—isn't good enough because this is so important.

So I ask the Senator, does he know of any specific funds that will definitely—not maybe but definitely—go to the research we are talking about; namely, nuclear detection devices to prevent nuclear weapons from being smuggled in, in a container?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, my good colleague from Montana is from a State that is quite different from mine. He has summed up this bill well. We are from different States but we face the same problem, and that is our northern border is not guarded as well as it should be.

Frankly, I think our country has done a very good job on the southern border. We have had lots of problems there in the past. The various governmental agencies, prodded in part by this body and the other body, did a good job tightening things up.

There was really no need to tighten up the northern border until 9/11. But what we have learned is that the terrorists know what we are doing. They can log onto the Internet, even if they are in a cave in Afghanistan, as long as they have a wireless connection, and can learn what we are doing. So they know what we all know: The southern border is pretty well guarded but the northern border is not.

As a result, we have seen that various terrorists and others who seek to do damage to our country, evil acts in our country, perhaps, have started crossing at the northern border. It is a massive border. It has 128 ports of entry. It is 5,500 miles long. Large parts of it are totally unguarded. Some of it is water. The Canadian border that New York State shares with Canada is bounded by Lake Ontario and by the Niagara River and by the St. Lawrence River. It is a beautiful border, it is a peaceful border, but unfortunately it can be used by bad people for evil purpose.

The challenge we face is we have trade with Canada. Western New York, the north country in New York State depend on that trade. Yet we need to be more secure. Can we have security and commerce? Is there a tradeoff between one and the other? Only if we do not provide the resources. If we provide the resources for personnel, for equipment, for technology, we can have the best of both worlds—a northern border that is secure and a northern border where a free flow of commerce occurs. It is extremely important. Canada is my State's biggest trading partner. Last year we exported $9 billion worth of merchandise to the north.

In order to do what we do, we need a three-pronged approach. We must first have the technological programs such as FAST, NEXUS, and US VISIT. We need the VACIS radiological detection program. And, most important, we need sufficient staffing at the border.

We recognized this in the PATRIOT Act, where we authorized a tripling of Immigration, Customs, and Border Patrol. I have to be honest; it is not that this country has done nothing. There are now more people guarding northern borders than there were in September 2001. There were 2,300 in September 2001; there are now about 5,000. That is a significant
advance and I am not critical of that advance; I think it is a good one.

But my motto in the post-9/11 world is a simple one: You can't be too careful. This is a greater expense but we need it. We need it both so commerce continues—I know your State, Mr. President, depends on that commerce as well—and we need it so our people can be more secure.

There should be, according to the PATRIOT Act, not just 5,000 men and women guarding that border, which there will be in September of 2004, but 6,900. That is a shortfall of 27 percent. We will basically have only three-quarters of the men and women at the northern border we publicly promised to station there.

That is less than one person per mile of the border.

The amendment of my good friend from Montana and I—again, from completely different States but who share the same problem of a border that is guarded better than before but still not well enough—allocates $200 million to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection for the express purpose of adding new personnel to the northern border. We give the Department of Homeland Security flexibility to transfer these funds to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement if needed to meet the PATRIOT Act goals.

I urge that we support it.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.