Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

AMENDMENT NO. 1353

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

    Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

    Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have three amendments. But I do not want to vote on my amendments in a stack. For my amendments, I want to have them voted on each after the debate on that particular amendment. I think that is the better way. I think whatever debate we can have on an amendment—I will say my amendment, and I have three—is fresh in the minds of those Senators who have been listening, or those who will listen, who are able to listen in their offices. I don't like stacked votes, as far as any amendments I have are concerned. Stacked votes may be for the convenience of Members, but, in my judgment, we are not here necessarily for the convenience of Members. We are here in this forum to debate and to act upon amendments that are in the interests of the Nation, as we see them.

    So for the information of the distinguished manager, I do have three amendments, but I want to call them up whenever I can have votes on them following the debate.

    Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Mississippi yield?

    Mr. COCHRAN. Yes.

    Mr. REID. I have spoken to the two sponsors of this amendment and they feel exactly as Senator Byrd does. They have spent all morning debating their amendment, and they are not going to allow us to go to another amendment until we vote on theirs. I suggest we vote on their amendment. Otherwise, we are not going to go forward on this bill. We asked them to come to the floor early this morning. They have been here. The debate has taken more than 2 hours. I think it has been one of the finest debates we have had in some time. I join with them, and I will object to proceeding to another amendment.

    Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I say further, if I may, what I have said is no reflection on the distinguished manager of the bill. He has been an excellent chairman of this new subcommittee and this is the first time we have appropriated on a full bill for this new Department.

    The Senator from Mississippi could not have performed better. He has been very fair with the members of his subcommittee. He has always been very fair with me. What I have said is not to be taken as any reflection or criticism of him whatever. His work is trying to get this bill passed.

    As the co-manager, I am interested in moving it along, too. But speaking from a personal viewpoint—and I don't call up many amendments of my own—I want to state to the Senator and to all Senators, while they are thinking of stacking votes, I have three amendments that I don't want in a stack. I want to vote on them when we have completed our debate. I don't want any 2-minute summation between other rollcalls. I think we have fallen into a kind of slipshod way of acting in the Senate. This is no fault of the Senator from Mississippi. I am voicing my sentiments with respect to my own amendments. I don't think it is a very good way to legislate, to line up six or eight votes. Sometimes we fall into a vote-arama, where we have a good many amendments called up, debated, set aside, and voted on later in a stack, when those Senators who perhaps listened during the debate have gone on to other things and have lost their recollection of what was said in the debate.

    I think we ought to vote on amendments when we complete the debate. Perhaps that is not always practicable. I can understand that, having been a majority leader and having been a minority leader. I understand the practicalities of these things. But the ideal way to proceed is as I have suggested—with debate on an amendment and then a vote.

    Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I must say that I agree, as a general rule, with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Nevada about the way the Senate should transact its business. I agree completely.

    There are situations, such as on the Budget Act, when we are limited in the amount of time we have for the consideration of a measure and necessarily we end up with one of these vote-aramas, as the Senator points out.

    I think, as a general rule, as we consider a bill, after the debate on the amendment is complete, or whatever the issue is, such as a motion to waive a point of order, we should vote on it. I agree.

    For that reason, I advise Senators that we are about to have a vote on the motion to waive by Senator Dodd on the point of order that was previously made to the Dodd amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the motion to waive.

AMENDMENT NO. 1367

    Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this week the Senate has considered a number of amendments to increase homeland security funding to address known vulnerabilities in our Nation. These are vulnerabilities we know are there. We have offered amendments to add funding for expanded homeland security missions that have been authorized by Congress and signed into law by the President since 9/11.

    I believe these amendments have been defeated not on the merits but because their adoption would have resulted in the bill exceeding limits established in the budget resolution. These are meritorious amendments, and I am confident some of the Senators who voted against them voted against them because the bill would then exceed limits established in the budget resolution. That is a compelling reason for many to consider.

    Therefore, today I offer an amendment that addresses these known vulnerabilities to the extent possible within the limits of our 302(b) allocation. I do so because the vulnerabilities are documented and the needs are clear.

    This bill includes $823 million, consistent with the President's request for information, analysis, and infrastructure protection. Since February, we have asked—now listen—the Department of Homeland Security to identify for us what specific infrastructure in this country is most vulnerable.

    To whom should we go to find out the answers, if not the Department of Homeland Security? That is the Department which should be able to pinpoint, should be able to give to the Congress, a list of the most vulnerable infrastructure and give us the priorities: Which is more vulnerable, A or B or C? That is the agency that ought to be able to answer the questions.

    Have we gotten any answer to our questions? No, no answer. This is the Department that should be held accountable and will be held accountable, and the Department has not responded.

    We have asked these questions more than once. So I shall offer an amendment that addresses these known vulnerabilities, to the extent possible, within the limits of our 302(b) allocation, and I do so because the vulnerabilities are documented and the needs are clear.

    This bill includes $823 million, consistent with the President's request for information, analysis, and infrastructure protection. Since February—let me say that again—since February, we have asked the Department of Homeland Security to identify for us in the Congress, in the Senate, what specific critical infrastructure in this country is most vulnerable.

    To date, the Department has provided no detail about how these funds would be spent—no detail, none. We requested it, as I say, as early as February and since February.

    The President is asking us to buy a pig in a poke. The administration wants us to give them $823 million of the taxpayers' money and they have not told Congress how the funds will be spent or whether these funds can be used effectively. Now why wouldn't they tell us? Why wouldn't they tell us?

    What we do know is that the Coast Guard has over $1.7 billion of pending applications for port security grants in order to secure our most vulnerable ports. We know that. What we do know is that the Coast Guard has estimated the cost of the ports implementing the Maritime Transportation Security Act security standards is $5.4 billion over 10 years and $1.1 billion in the first year. So when you add the funds in this bill to previously appropriated funds, the Department would have only $518 million to help the ports improve their security.

    What we do know is that the Department of Homeland Security received applications from over 20,000 of the Nation's local fire departments, totaling $2.5 billion out of their desire to equip and to train themselves to deal with weapons of mass destruction and to improve their capacity to respond to other emergencies in their communities.

    What we do know is that only 10 percent of our fire departments have the capacity to deal with a major building collapse. What we do know is that only 13 percent have the equipment and training to deal with biological or chemical terrorist attacks.

    What we do know is that the Coast Guard commandant has testified that there is no funding in the budget for the Coast Guard to enforce the new port security standards that are mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act and that the Coast Guard imposed on the port industry on July 1.

    What we do know is that the General Accounting Office has concluded that 123 chemical facilities across the country—some of them in the great Kanawha Valley in West Virginia—has concluded that 123 chemical facilities across the country, if attacked, could inflict serious damage and expose millions of people to toxic chemicals and gasses. There are 3,000 chemical facilities in 49 States that if attacked could affect more than 10,000 people each. This is serious business. The General Accounting Office found that the Federal Government has not comprehensively assessed the chemical industry's vulnerabilities to terrorist attack.

    This amendment would address those issues by providing $100 million for port security grants, $100 million for grants to fire departments, $42 million for the Coast Guard to implement the port security requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, and $50 million for chemical security vulnerability assessment.

    This amendment is fully offset for both budget authority and outlays by reducing amounts in the infrastructure account by $292 million.

    I say again that the amendment has fully offset both the budget authority and outlays by reducing amounts in the infrastructure account by $292 million. Even after this reduction, the infrastructure account will have a funding level which is three times the level from fiscal year 2003.

    I urge the Senate adopt the amendment. The Senate should address these known vulnerabilities now.

    Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The current amendment will be set aside and the clerk will report.

    The legislative clerk read as follows:

    The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. BYRD] proposes an amendment numbered 1367.

    Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

AMENDMENT NO. 1367

    Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi uses an old phrase that I cut my teeth on when I worked in a meat shop back in the coal camps during the Great Depression. He speaks about this "meat-ax" approach—meat-ax. Meat-ax, my foot. Is this administration serious or is it not serious about homeland security? Is it serious or is it not serious? We have heard all this talk—or is it mere talk? Is it just rhetoric? Is it rhetoric without resources?

    Let me say again, Congress, the Senate, has asked the administration, the Department of Homeland Security, for a list of its vulnerabilities. How would it spend the $823 million? We say to the Secretary of Homeland Security: How are you going to expend the moneys? What are the vulnerabilities? Tell us. The moneys have been sitting there unspent for how long? Ten months? What are the vulnerabilities? Tell us. We are the elected representatives of the people. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security wasn't elected by anybody to the current position he holds.

    I have great respect for former Governor Ridge, but what are the vulnerabilities? Let us see your list. To date, no list. The Department has not responded. So we say: If you have $823 million sitting there, and we know that this Nation and its people cry out for security, we hear about al-Qaida being here and there, and about its being in Iran and about all the threats, the level of threats, we know about the code orange and code yellow and the code red—but no list. Where is the list?

    I think we have a right to say if you are not going to show us a list, we know there are vulnerabilities, and we propose to spend some money to meet those needs. The American people are busy. Those who have jobs are busy trying to put a little bread and butter on the table. They cannot read all of the news stories about budgetary problems and 302(b) allocations. They depend on us in the Senate. They depend on the Senator from Mississippi. They are depending on the Senator from West Virginia. They depend on the Senator from Kentucky who presides over the Senate at the moment. They depend on the Senator from New York and the Senator from Vermont. They think we ought to know.

    They think the Department of Homeland Security, which has been handed these responsibilities by the Congress, is taking care of everything. They think the Department is on top of the problem.

    They believe their homes are secure and their schools are secure. They believe the vulnerabilities that have been talked about are being taken care of.

    The American people go to their jobs every day and work hard. They return home in the evenings and read the newspapers. They watch the television news and talk with their families over the supper table. We still call it supper in West Virginia. They think all that is taken care of. Many of them rest easy because they think we are on the job, that we will do the job for them, and that we are looking out for them. We are not looking out for them.

    I say to you the Department will not respond to the Congress. Of course, it is not a surprise to me anymore because this administration looks upon the Congress with contempt—at least that is my perception—with utter disdain. Those peons up there, they want to know what the vulnerabilities are. We will tell them when we get ready.

    Senator Stevens and I, upon more than one occasion in times gone by, have sought to add moneys to appropriations bills to meet the needs of the defense of this Nation and homeland security. The administration, with some apparent contempt, wrote us back on more than one occasion that the administration has everything well in hand. They don't need the extra moneys that you are wanting to provide. The administration is not ready for that. We will let you know. We on Mount Olympus from our ethereal atmosphere will one day let you know how much money we need, but not now.

    That is the contemptuous attitude some of those people downtown have. It is pretty clear from their letters and from the way they spurn the Congress and turn the back of their hand to the Congress.

    I say the American people ought not be misled. But they are being misled if they perceive and believe they are being protected, that we are on top of everything, and that the administration has its act together. They are wrong.

    Here is an amendment that would address the known vulnerabilities to the extent possible.

    I don't believe the American people ought to be misled. They ought to have a right to believe that we are attending to the gaps in their security.

    The distinguished Senator from Mississippi speaks about this $823 million that is there, and if we do this little amendment we will be in essence robbing the account or taking away from account moneys that the Department knows better how to spend. Even with the reduction in this amendment, the account is tripled over the fiscal year 2003 level.

    The chairman has called this amendment a meat-ax cut—meat ax. I bear a scar on my left thumb today put there by a meat ax. I know what a meat-ax cut is. A meat-ax cut in spending. Yes. The account would grow from approximately $180 million to $582 million. I don't see this as a meat ax cut. I don't see this as a cut.

    Securing our ports is important to our infrastructure by any definition. It is important to our infrastructure. How could we better spend that money? The money is lying there. It is not being spent. And the Department won't even tell us in the Senate what the priorities are, and how they would suggest those moneys be spent.

    This amendment defines the infrastructure investments that we know about and know must be made.

    I hope Senators will support this amendment.

    There is nothing political about this amendment. The money has been appropriated for infrastructure. The Department in charge of the expenditures of this money won't tell the Congress how the money should be spent or what the priorities are or how the Department sees those priorities or how the Department intends to spend the money or how the Department would propose this money be spent or what the vulnerabilities are. The Department won't tell us that.

    What are we to do? The American people think they are being secured. They are not.

    I hope Senators will support this amendment and spend the money where it will do the most good—on where we know there are vulnerabilities to the Nation.

    I yield the floor.