Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2005 - Continued

Date: Sept. 14, 2004
Location: Washington DC

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
Sept. 14, 2004
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005-CONTINUED

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner's requests for Federal disaster relief following Henri and Isabel was approved and FEMA was on the ground in Glenville immediately to assist. Since last September, however, we have come to the realization that more help is needed. Repairs to flood-damaged homes would be difficult because Glenville, hit hard in 1994 by Hurricane Floyd, is certain to suffer repeated flooding. The State of Delaware and New Castle County have now stepped in with $15 million each to purchase and destroy flood-damaged homes.
BREAK IN TEXT

Mr. BIDEN. I know that no existing FEMA program was intended to buy out an entire community but $30 million is a lot of money in a State like mine. I believe additional Federal assistance for Glenville will help the State and the county finish their work there while maintaining sufficient emergency response capacity to deal with future storms.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of this Homeland Security Appropriations bill today, but I do so with great reservation and with the knowledge that its funding levels are woefully inadequate for the job of providing an effective defensive front in the war on terror.

Our highest priorities, as a Congress and as a Nation, have to be the security of the homeland and prevailing in the fight against terrorism. I fear that the bill before us does not provide the resources necessary to meet these priorities.

This bill does not reflect my priorities, nor does it represent a homeland security budget I would write. I voted against the President's budget when it was before the Senate earlier this year. One of the main reasons I gave then for my opposition to the majority's budget resolution was its low level of funding for homeland security. Today, unfortunately, we are seeing the results of that budget.

The President's priorities seem to be along the lines of tax cuts for the wealthy and a missile defense system. Those are not my priorities. My priorities are the safety and security of my constituents and of the Nation. This bill reflects the President's priorities, as his tax cuts have left us with too few dollars to adequately secure the homeland.

Let me give just a few examples of where this bill is deficient. Senator BYRD offered an amendment to add $2 billion to this $33 billion Homeland Security Appropriations bill. I voted in favor of this proposal; yet, the majority voted in lock-step against it. Senator BYRD included in his amendment funds to double the amounts allocated to deploy radiation monitors at our ports. The Department of Homeland Security estimates it will cost $496 million to deploy enough radiation monitors to screen all inbound containerized cargo at the Nation's busiest ports; yet, the Department has insisted upon deploying this technology over a 5-year period. I do not believe we have 5 years to wait, and Senator BYRD would have doubled the pace of this effort. How can opponents justify voting against these funds?

Also included in this $2 billion amendment was an additional $100 million to beef up passenger security screening at airports. One of the portions of the 9/11 Commission's Report that leapt out at me dealt with the security vulnerabilities that remain in our airports. According to the Commission, "[t]he TSA and the Congress must give priority attention to improving the ability of screening checkpoints to detect explosives on passengers. As a start, each individual selected for special screening should be screened for explosives."

I expect it would surprise many of my constituents to know that the long lines we all go through at airports do not result in passengers being screened only for metal objects. When Russian airplanes are being blown out of the sky, likely by Chechen terrorists carrying explosives, and when the so-called "shoe bomber," Richard Reid, tries to blow up a Miami-bound plane with carried-on explosives, we know we need to do a better job. But this bill provides only $75 million to continue to test for chemical and explosive material. Industry representatives have reported to me that these systems are ready to be deployed now, and that we need merely to spend the resources necessary to deploy them around the country. The $100 million proposed by Senator BYRD would have started us down that road, and I do not know how those who voted against these funds justify their position.

How can my friends on the other side of the aisle vote against additional resources to secure our seaport and railway systems? The $2 billion I referenced earlier also included an additional $350 million for transit and rail security grants, along with an additional $125 million for port security grants.

Not once since the attacks of 9/11 has the administration asked for an additional dollar of funding to protect passengers on our Nation's rails. More people pass through Penn Station in New York City every day than pass through all 3 of that city's major airports, to take just one example. But not a dime of new money has been requested by the President to protect those passengers.

The Commerce committee, under the leadership of Senator McCain and Senator Hollings, has reported legislation authorizing over $1.1 billion to enhance rail security. As my good friend from California has said, that legislation has not passed the Senate. In fact, since the attacks of 9/11 the Congress has refused to authorize additional security resources for Amtrak. Anonymous holds on the other side of the aisle have blocked action for 2 Congresses. The administration has done nothing to get that legislation-bipartisan bills-moving. That ought to be a scandal.

I am pleased that the amendment offered by Senator CARPER and Senator BOXER has been accepted. That will give Amtrak a fighting chance to get some of the funding this bill makes available for rail and transit security. But this will not feed the bulldog, Mr. President. This will not close the obvious gaps in our rail security. Given the low priority that rail security has been given, despite known and announced threats, I can only hope that Amtrak will get its share of the funds. I hope that when we revisit rail security in the next Congress, we will not regret the delay and penny-pinching that we have displayed on this issue.

This bill is underfunded and shortsighted, and I regret that the amendments I supported to add needed homeland security dollars were not included. While the bill before us today does not reflect my priorities, I will vote for it so that funds can continue to flow to our States, our critical infrastructures, and for the day-to-day operations of the Department of Homeland Security. But I look forward to debating appropriations bills that do reflect my priorities, and that truly do all we should do to secure the homeland and wage an effective war on terror.

arrow_upward