Congressional Budget for U.S. Government for Fiscal Year 2004 (Continued)

Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair. This amendment is relevant, of course, to our new circumstances since last night, but I would just want to address my colleagues in the Senate on the circumstances of last night for a few minutes before getting to the amendment, because the President spoke to the American people. He said hostilities are commenced.
    
I would just leave three thoughts as we begin on the era of this war. First is a prayer.
    
First, Mr. President, as I listened to the chaplain from St. Joseph's give the prayer and we said the pledge, I think every one of us who was here felt a renewed depth and meaning to both the prayer and the pledge, given the times we are in.
    
I would like to just add my prayer. My prayer is a simple one: It is that our military action is swift and decisive, with a minimum of casualties, both military and civilian. And my prayer, of course, goes to the soldiers, first and foremost, who are now in the Iraqi theater. They are continuing a grand American tradition, a tradition where civilians have laid down their jobs and then defended this country when the Commander in Chief thought they should.
    
I have been to several of the debarkation ceremonies at Fort Drum and Canandaigua, on Long Island, as soldiers have boarded planes to go over to the Middle East. Because so many of our soldiers are now reservists and Army National Guard, they are a little older. They are every bit as trained and seasoned as the enlisted men and women, and I know our generals have complete confidence in them, as I do.
    
But you see them with their families—not only with their parents, whom we have always seen with our soldiers, but in much greater frequency with their husbands and wives and their children. And we know the butterflies that are in all the stomachs as they prepare to leave. I look in their faces as they leave, and I am humbled and proud of them. My prayers are with them. We all pray for them.
    
Again, we pray that the military action is swift and decisive and there be very few casualties, both military and civilian. The military, of course, I have spoken of. But I pray there are few civilian casualties. The war we are waging is not a war against the Iraqi people. It is a war aimed at the leadership of Iraq. The average Iraqi citizens—a husband or a wife, a mother or a father, a child, a son or a daughter—have the same loves and cares and worries in many ways that all the rest of the citizens of the world have. We pray that the number of casualties among the civilians is small.
    
So that is the prayer of which the guest Chaplain from St. Peter's reminded me.
    
Then we said the pledge to the flag. Our flag is a flag of unity. Now is the time for unity, for all of us to back our soldiers. There have been many different views held, with great passion, on what we should do in Iraq; there is no question about that. Every one of us here, on both sides of the aisle, might have scripted things differently. I, for one, have said I hoped we could get more international support. But if every one of us just said, "Only our plan, or nothing," we would be paralyzed. I believe Saddam Hussein has to be disarmed and removed from power. That is why I supported the President in his resolution. Now I believe is a time for unity. Now is a time for us to be backing up our troops. Now is a time that the President becomes Commander in Chief and that unity is called for.

I just add one caveat: Freedom is what we are fighting for. Not everyone will feel the call for unity that I think is incumbent upon all of us in this body as leaders of this country, and some will continue to dissent. I hope we respect that dissent. In my State, there are many people whose views are heartfelt. They are different from mine. They are different from yours. They are probably different from the views of most of us in this Chamber. And the right to dissent is what we are fighting for. It is part of this tradition. I hope we are mindful of that, as well.
    
Then one other thought. As I said, I pray that the military action is swift and decisive and that our victory comes quickly. Let us hope we can sow a wise peace in Iraq as well. Let us hope there can be a democratic Iraq despite the fact there are so many ethnic divisions. Let us hope we can bring democracy to the Middle East, a place starved for freedom, a place starved for individual choice, a place starved for prosperity.
    
Let us hope the people of the Middle East, the Iraqi people, like everyone else, want to bring stability and a good life to them and their families. The beauty of a democracy is that you can strive to help your family and help yourself and at the same time you help the whole country. Unfortunately, the peoples of the Middle East—many of them—have not been fed a diet of food, clothing, and shelter but have been fed a diet of propaganda and hatred, which dictators often use to feed their people when they cannot provide a system of freedom, democratically and economically, that provides food. Let's hope that can change as well.
    
So, Mr. President, we are in a new era. I realized this in my city from the time 9/11 happened. I put this flag on, on 9/12, in memory of all those who were then missing and the thousands who proved to be lost, gone. I met their families. I just met with some yesterday. I know the holes in their hearts, the sadness, frustration, and anger they feel. But we cannot forget them. We cannot forget what happened.
    
I will wear this flag, God willing, this very one, every day for the rest of my life to think of them, to remind me that whatever our views here are, we have to do something to stop the scourge of terrorism, which will grow and grow and grow if we do nothing.
    
Now, on to the amendment I would like to discuss, I realize it is not pending before us, but it is a relevant amendment. I, like my colleague from North Dakota, like my colleague from Nevada, hope we will have a full discussion about supporting our troops and the impending war. I have had an opportunity to express some of my views. I have limited them because I know the leadership wants to move forward, at least at this point, with this amendment. But this amendment at least has some relevance.
    
The amendment is one that deals with homeland security. It is an amendment that deals, in my judgment at least, with an unfulfilled need in the budget, the need to protect our homeland.
    
The whole world has changed since 9/11. We know that. We all have different views, again, as to how we ought to adapt to that change, but we cannot just ignore it. I think that is clear. History teaches us that.
    
One of the things we have to learn and adjust to do is protect our homeland. You cannot win the war on terror, in my opinion, with just an offense; you need a defense. Like any good sports team, like, say, the Syracuse Orangemen, who are playing in the NCAA, you need a good offense and a good defense.
    
There has been a great deal of focus on the offense. I do not think there has been enough focus on the defense because terrorists, unfortunately, are going to be with us for a while. The new technology that has blessed our lives and changed our country, that has created a lot of the prosperity we have seen in the last few decades, has an evil underside, and that is that small groups of bad people can use that technology to do huge damage in our homeland, damage we never imagined could be done until 2 years ago. That fact is going to be with us not just for 2 or 3 years, it is going to be with us for decades. And even if, God willing, we were to get rid of al-Qaida, and get rid of Saddam and his cronies who lead Iraq right now, there will be new terrorists who will come up.
    
We have to protect our homeland. The odds are we will not be able to catch up to every new terrorist group that starts. The sad fact is, you can be in a cave anywhere in this world and if you have a wireless connection to the Internet, you can learn a whole lot about America. Then even a small group united together can do real damage here. So we have to look at every one of our weak pressure points and tighten them up.
    
You can't just be content to fight a war overseas. To preserve and to protect our country, we must protect it at home. We have to try to think ahead of the terrorists. We have to try to think where they will hit us so that we can prevent that from happening. The list is a long one. There are probably places that no one has even thought of that we are weak in and where we need protection. But we have to do it.
    
I make one other point. We can't delay. It is a huge undertaking. That is true. The terrorists will look to our weaknesses. That is true. If we strengthen air security, they will look to rail. If we strengthen rail security, they will look to ports. If we deal with bioterrorism, they will look at cyber-terrorism. Because of the information revolution, they have access to everything about America. It is all on the Internet. We will not stop the Internet. So we have to tighten up, and tightening up costs money.
    
This budget does not acknowledge that reality. That is the fundamental problem. I am honored and privileged to introduce this amendment with my colleague from New York, as well as the help of the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, our minority leader Senator Daschle, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Byrd. A large number of our Democratic caucus participated in crafting it.
    
This budget resolution is the first step, but we are going to continue to fight on the supplemental appropriation that comes up and throughout the year because we believe homeland security is an imperative for America. We believe we have to do something about it, and we can't wait. The horrible feeling that so many of us had on September 12, mostly for the loss and the danger and damage, but also it already came into our minds, what if we had done this, what if we had done that? As we learned more, there were lots more what ifs that were asked. We don't want a second terrorist incident to occur and we are saying "what if" again. This amendment is intended to make the likelihood of those what ifs much lower. It is an attempt to diminish it.
    
Let me explain what the amendment does. It provides an additional $88 billion for fiscal years 2003 to 2013 for homeland security over and above the current proposed 2004 budget, including $5 billion in the immediate 2003 funding for first responders, port, border, and transportation security. That is a limited amount of money, but remember we only have half a year left. We don't want to waste money. We want it spent wisely. We thought this was about the maximum amount in this fiscal year, where everything is just getting started up in homeland security, that people could use.
    
For 2004, the proposed budget would spend about $380 billion on defense—I support that, I support our troops—but we are only spending $37.7 billion on homeland security. We can do better than that. We should do better. I hope this amendment will be a bipartisan one in that regard. It is fully offset, and it provides a little deficit reduction as well.

Mr. SCHUMER. In 2003, it is $5 billion. In 2004, it is approximately 6.5.

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the first part of this amendment deals with homeland security. The additional homeland security requirements on every one of our localities are enormous. Just yesterday, the mayor of my city, Mayor Bloomberg, and Secretary Tom Ridge announced that the administration would be seeking additional funding for homeland security in the next supplemental budget. That is a great first step. I hope there are sufficient resources to deal with the problem, particularly with the first responders who are definitely suffering.
    
Since September 11, the Congress has worked with the administration in a bipartisan fashion in many ways. I hope this homeland security issue can become a bipartisan one as well. But it does involve spending the dollars necessary. Words alone will not bring the homeland security that our people need.
    
Let's first go to first responders. I know in New York City, first responders are stretched as far as they can be. Like most other places, we have fiscal problems. So the number, for instance, of police officers is 4,000 lower than it was before. Many other agencies have fewer people working. In all instances, our police, firefighters, being the patriotic people they are, have a high proportion in the reserves, so we are losing people going overseas to fight for us. At the same time, there are huge new responsibilities. For instance, the many bridges and tunnels of New York City, the many buildings, houses of worship have to be guarded more carefully. That takes a huge expense. That is during normal times. In addition to all of those expenses, our police chief, Commissioner Kelly, set up something, with Mayor Bloomberg, called Operation Atlas to deal with wartime. It is another $5 million a week. The mayor wisely said that he was not going to cut back on security if we didn't get Federal help for it, but it is stretching the people of our city and the first responders of our city. That is true with the brave firefighters. That is true with other first responders. It is true with the hospital staff who have to prepare for, God forbid, a bioterrorist attack. Everywhere we look, there are new needs. It is not just in New York City.
    
I have an article from yesterday's Rochester Democratic Chronicle, the leading paper in Rochester. It talks about Rochester. It is a middle-size city. It has about 230,000 people in the city, close to a million in the greater metropolitan area—800,000. The city has its own burdens, as does every city. It is on Lake Ontario, which is pretty much unguarded. It is near the Canadian border. It is a little bit east of Lackawanna, which is near Buffalo, where the cell was found.
What do we propose to do in this amendment? We propose to support our first responders throughout the country in a measured but important way. The bill provides $35 billion over the proposed budget plan's funding level for the fiscal years 2003 to 2013 to provide first responder grants to States and localities to be used for hiring, for equipping, for training first responders, as well as covering related overtime costs.
    
The amendment includes an additional $3.5 billion for first responder grants for fiscal year 2003 to ensure that cities and States can get needed funds immediately.
    
On September 11, 2001, we know these first responders in New York City and elsewhere put their lives on the line to serve their country, just as our Armed Forces do. It is a different way, but they are brave and need help, and we should be backing them up just as we back up our soldiers.
    
Next, in terms of first responders, we restore the cuts to law enforcement and to firefighters. The State and local law enforcement agencies deserve an increased commitment from the Federal Government, and this amendment restores $10 billion in cuts to State and local law enforcement and fire programs. The COPS Program, which is so important in bringing about security, is restored. The fire program—I see my colleague from Connecticut on the floor. He was instrumental in bringing up the fire program. That is vital. Byrne grants, that is part of this amendment. All of the Byrne grants are restored, and other areas.

    
I know there will be individual amendments on this issue. My colleague from New York and I are offering individual amendments on different parts of these issues that will be debated and voted on later. But this amendment has it all in one package. If my colleagues are for helping first responders throughout the country, this amendment is important. We do not just deal with personnel. We deal with equipment. Our police, fire, and emergency workers need new equipment. They have to guard, just as the soldiers do, against biological and chemical weaponry.
    
Again, the local cupboard is bare. The cities, the States do not have money to do this. Are we going to delay the safety of our citizens for several years, or is the Federal Government going to step up to the plate in terms of its responsibility?
    
Again, I am delighted that Secretary Ridge announced that the supplemental appropriations will contain new dollars, but how many? Is it enough? Is it similar to this amendment which, as I said, will be drawn tightly but mindful of real needs?
    
The amendment increases the much needed funding for firefighters, hiring, and equipment, including the FIRE and SAFER Acts, by providing $11 billion over 10 years. So on first responders, this bill is carefully drawn but does the job. It is certainly adequate, and it is what we need. It is a very fine first start.
    
I hope we will not repeat the mistake of either not funding these programs or funding them in a small way, mainly by taking money out of existing programs which does not make it any easier for our police departments, our fire departments, or anybody else.
    
There are other areas that need help in terms of homeland security as well. Our first responders are extremely important, and they get the majority of the money that we have proposed here, but there are lots of Federal responsibilities as well.
    
Port security, for instance, is an issue that I have become very concerned about and interested in. How could terrorists strike? As I mentioned earlier, they can strike in a myriad of ways, and they are going to look at our weak pressure points. One thing they could do is smuggle something in a ship, in a container that comes by our ports: the worst case scenario, a nuclear bomb.
    
I have talked long about that dreadful possibility and what we can do about it. My friend from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, has been a leader on this issue in terms of making sure we know what is in the containers and that someone cannot sneak something in. I have been fighting for nuclear detection devices that could be attached to every crane that loads or unloads a container. We need both.
    
Again, we are underfunding port security rather dramatically. The amendment does these two things on port security, as well as several other things. As we know, in the Budget Act we cannot lay out the specifics but we know it will go a long way.

Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my friend from North Dakota.
    
So we have an additional $500 million in 2003, an additional $625 million in 2004, and we total $7.8 billion over the 10-year period that we are adding things on.
    
Right now, only 2 percent of the cargo containers are screened. Not every container is going to be screened. We know some of them are more suspicious than others. But most experts say it has to go up along with our ability to both track containers that come in and then secure them so nobody can come in after we know what is in the container, if it loads, say, in Rotterdam, and then someone sneaks something else in—to make sure that does not happen.
    
Another issue is rail and transit security. Many of our cities have large tunnels in which terrorists could do some dastardly actions. Our own Penn Station in New York City is a classic example. It is almost a mile of tunnel with no egress, poor ventilation, thousands of people on commuter trains during rush hour going in or going out, from the whole northeast area, not just from New York. We have to do something about that.
    
We have to do more to deal with truck security. Again, a method of choice of terrorists has been to take hazardous material, place it on a truck and then explode it. Of all places, Brazil has a good system using GPS and assigned routes. They can tell immediately if a truck goes off track, if it is a hazardous material truck. We do not do that. The Brazilians, by the way, have saved money by implementing this because the number of stolen trucks has greatly decreased.
    
The bottom line is that there are many other places in transportation security that is not air and that is not rail, where we have to be more secure. This amendment proposes a $5 billion increase for the TSA's budget to start doing these things.
    
Those of us from Washington State to Maine who share the border with Canada know how unguarded it is. We have been proud of our unguarded border. The Canadian Government does its best to cooperate, but we do not have close to the number of personnel and detection devices that are needed to make the northern border secure. The southern border needs help as well, but not close to the amount that the northern border does. The number of personnel in my State, which shares several hundred miles of border with Canada, is small and not enough.
    
We have to do more. The detection devices that have worked rather successfully on the southern border are not installed. Then border security needs other help because of commerce that cities such as Buffalo and Detroit and Seattle-Tacoma have with Canada. We need all kinds of new computer systems so we can check trucks quickly. We want to have both commerce and security, and we can if we provide the dollars.
    
If the dollars are not provided, you are either going to have weak security or you are going to have to go the old route and try to inspect so many trucks that the traffic is backed up at the border for hours, the economy suffers, and the number of jobs decline. So we have to do that as well.
    
The amendment provides $8.2 billion over 10 years for border security, $450 million in this remaining 6 months of the fiscal year.
    
The FBI, that is another place where homeland security matters. The FBI was in poor shape in terms of counterterrorism before 9/11. It is trying to move quickly, but it needs more help.
    
The computer system is still almost laughable. I have had lengthy discussions with Director Mueller. They are trying their best, they are working hard, but we should not have money be a barrier to them doing what they need to do.
    
Intelligence gathering, we are rearranging those agencies and restructuring them to make the synapse between domestic and foreign intelligence less of a barrier. That is a great idea. It takes dollars. While the leadership says the FBI has all the money they need, go talk to the people in the ranks, they do not think so. So we add an additional billion dollars in funding for the FBI to hire new personnel, particularly analysts and translators, and upgrade critical infrastructure.
    
Bioterrorism, this is a place where we have made some progress but not enough. Aside from the money our first responders need in terms of local government, in terms of hospitals—we are asking so many hospitals to do the job in terms of bioterrorism. I do not have a problem with that. I do not think there has to be a new Federal agency, but it takes dollars to store the vaccines; to do the training about how to administer the various programs; to do the training, how to spot the illnesses. With bioterrorism, we know early detection is vital. The amendment provides $5.7 billion for bioterrorism initiatives to improve the public health sector's ability to prepare for disasters and local governments' ability to cover the cost.
    
Finally, threat assessment and critical infrastructure assessment, the amendment provides a billion dollars so we can know what we are doing and we can stay ahead of other potential weak pressure points that we do not know about now. Critical infrastructure such as chemical plants and nuclear powerplants and water infrastructure, they need to be protected. We are not sure even how to do it. We have had no blueprint and it is being done differently in different States, with varying degrees of success. The Federal Government has to be more involved. So we provide a billion dollars to conduct an assessment of the relative threat levels in coordination with intelligence and to begin to prepare to protect these areas.

Here, our first responder money will play in because it will not be Federal people who do this. It will be local people. But they need to know what to do.
    
I will have more to say later, but this is a basic outline of our proposal. There is large help for first responders, $38 billion over 10 years, an immediate shot in the arm in 2003 and then large funding levels in 2004; help in the other areas where we need help.
    
We have not covered everything, but we have covered a lot. As we work through the appropriations process, we will hope to refine them.
    
In conclusion, I ask my colleagues to look at this amendment. I ask them to ask themselves if we have done enough on homeland security. I ask them to answer the infamous "what if" question. How many of us want to be here the morning after, God forbid, another attack on our homeland and say, what if? This amendment prevents that what if. It goes a long way to preventing that what if. I hope it will receive broad and bipartisan support.