This amendment meets critical needs.  It addresses vulnerabilities that we all know exist.  And let there be no doubt, if we know that these gaps exist, so do the terrorists.

It has been more than two and a half years since Richard Reid, the so-called "shoe bomber", tried to blow up a Miami-bound aircraft over the Atlantic Ocean with explosives he carried onto the aircraft.  Last month two Russian airplanes simultaneously were blown out of the sky, most probably by Chechnyan terrorists who carried the explosives on board the aircraft.   The 9/11 Commission Report states clearly and succinctly that the threat posed to passenger aircraft by explosives being carried onto the plane is real.  Yet, the President has not responded, so the Senate must.

The additional $100 million in this amendment will significantly expand the effort to screen air travelers for explosives and chemical weapons.  We know that newly developed passenger portals can detect whether passengers are carrying explosives.  These systems have been tested and proven to work.  We need the money to physically deploy these systems at our Nation's airports.  Lives depend on it.

Following the March 11 Madrid railroad bombings, the Administration issued security bulletins to law enforcement officials and transit authorities warning of the danger of similar attacks here at home.  Crowded trains are inviting targets for terrorists.  Busy transit stations allow for easy access, anonymity, and quick escape.  Yet, the Administration requested no new funding to secure mass transit facilities.  We cannot continue to deceive the American people.

Under Secretary Asa Hutchinson said that, "Millions of Americans travel by rail every day and recent world events highlight the need to ensure they are kept safe from acts of terror."  Yet, the White House proposed no new funds, just an unfunded mandate.  Paper directives and press releases will not stop terrorist bombs.

On May 6, 2004, the Senate Banking Committee, on a bipartisan basis, approved S. 2453, which authorizes $5.2 billion for transit security.  On May 21, 2004, the Senate Commerce Committee, also on bipartisan basis, approved S. 2273, which authorizes $1.2 billion for additional rail security activities.

On a broad bipartisan basis, these Committees have recognized the overwhelming need for this Congress and the Administration to step up to the plate and robustly address the security threat facing our rail and transit systems.  The President has not responded.  The Senate absolutely must.  My amendment includes $350 million for transit security grants. 

Three years after 9/11, despite hundreds of firemen losing their lives in the World Trade Center because they could not receive  emergency radio messages to evacuate, the Federal government has contributed little to the effort to solve the interoperability communications problem.  In fact, the President proposes to terminate the Justice Department COPS interoperable communications grants program and proposes no funding for fire departments and other first responders through the Department of Homeland Security.  What in the name of heaven is he waiting for?

This amendment provides $100 million for interoperable communications equipment.  The Senate Commerce/Justice/State bill is expected to include $100 million for the COPS program to improve interoperable communications for police departments.  Why not make sure that police, fire and emergency medical personnel can communicate with each other?

The $100 million contained in my amendment meets only a fraction of the need, but it is a critical start.  While States can use their first responder grants for solving the interoperability problem, many states have not chosen to use first responder dollars to address this problem because of the complexity of multi- jurisdiction and multi-agency purchases, and because of competing demands on first responder funds.  In 2003, according to the Alliance in Support of America's First Responders, only three percent of funding was dedicated for interoperable communications equipment.  A separate funding source is required to overcome these hurdles and my amendment accomplishes that goal.

The 9/11 Commission recommends allocating first responder funds based on threat rather than on population.  My amendment adds $440 million to the $875 million currently provided in the Senate bill for Urban Area Security Initiative grants.  These grants are targeted to cities determined to be at greatest risk of a terrorist attack, that have the highest number of critical assets, such as tunnels, bridges and chemical plants, and have high population densities.  We need to get funds to the places most at risk.

On August 1, the Department had such specific threat information that it moved northern New Jersey, Washington, DC, and New York City from code yellow to code orange.  We must back up such targeted warnings with funds, and the Urban Area Security Initiative program allows the Secretary to send funds where they are needed most – not based on formula, but based on facts.

The Council on Foreign Relations report, authored by former Senator Warren Rudman, found that America will fall approximately $98.4 billion short of meeting critical emergency responder needs in the next five years.  Cities are spending an additional $70 million per week on personnel costs alone.  Funding Urban Area Security Initiative grants is the only way to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security can get money to the cities most likely at risk.

My amendment also provides an additional $46 million for the fire grant program to restore the program to current level and avoid an ill-advised funding cut.  In the current threat environment, why in the world would one slash fire grant funding?

Last year, the U.S. Fire Administration received more than 20,100 applications totaling $2.1 billion in funding requests from local fire departments.  This year, the Fire Administration received 20,366 applications totaling $2.6 billion from local fire departments.  The bill provides only $700 million for the program.  As one of the pillars of the first responder community, it is essential that our firefighters have the best equipment and training possible.  But because of short-sighted Administration budgets, too many fire departments are being left high and dry.

What about our borders?  The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency has a five-year plan for deploying radiation portal monitors at our ports.  The plan calls for deployment of approximately 2,000 of these monitors at locations around the country based on its assessment of the nuclear smuggling threat focusing on nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons material, radiation dispersal devices, and other illegal or illicit radioactive material. 

Why should we wait for a five year plan?  The additional $50 million in this amendment will allow CBP to deploy radiation portal monitors to screen 100 percent of inbound containerized cargo at 30 additional seaport terminals, thus completing the deployment of these monitors at America's top 22 seaports, and several Southwest Border land crossings.  Let's start now.

My amendment also addresses the need for more personnel on our borders.  The USA Patriot Act passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, called for a tripling of the number of Border Patrol agents, as well as Customs Service and Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) inspectors, on the Northern Border.

While the Border Patrol has met the Patriot Act requirements to increase the number of agents on the Northern Border, the number of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers remains woefully inadequate.  In May of 2004, CBP was 1,428 officers short of the goal.  Yet, incredibly, the agency has been stuck in a hiring freeze ordered by the Administration in March.

The $50 million provided in this amendment will add 439 new CBP officers -- getting us almost a third of the way toward meeting the Patriot Act requirements. 

My amendment also includes $324 million for the Coast Guard Deepwater program.  Prior to September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard began to modernize its fleet of assets.  The program, named Deepwater, called for the modernization or replacement of some 100 cutters and 200 aircraft over a 20 year period.

Since the attacks on 9/11, the Coast Guard's responsibilities have grown substantially.  As a result, assets vital to homeland security are being used more today than ever in the Coast Guard's history.  The Government Accountability Office recently reported that "resource usage – as measured by the number of hours the Coast Guard's cutters, boats, and aircraft used to perform its missions – were up almost 40 percent from the pre-September 11 baseline."

The Coast Guard Commandant, in testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, testified that the current condition of the aging fleet threatens Coast Guard mission performance.  He testified that Coast Guard assets are in a "declining readiness spiral."

Yet, the President has not responded.  What happened to "Whatever it takes"?  The President's budget for the Deepwater program will take twenty-two years to complete.  This is two years slower than the capital improvement program envisioned when Deepwater was conceived prior to the tragic events of September 11th.

My amendment provides $324 million above the amount provided in the Committee bill, the full amount authorized by the Congress and the President just one month ago.  This funding will address the Coast Guard's "declining readiness spiral."  The funding would go to accelerate the Coast Guard's highest priorities, which are to enhance safety and reliability on the HH-65 helicopter, accelerate the design of the Fast Response Cutter for near shore missions, and complete design of the Offshore Response Cutter for the high endurance missions of the Coast Guard.  The funding will accelerate the Deepwater program, finishing it in 15 years instead of the Administration's 22 year plan.

We also must do more to protect our seaports.  The top 50 U.S. ports account for 90 percent of all cargo container tonnage entering the United States.  A one-month closure of a major port would cost our national economy $60 billion.  But because of the tremendous volume of containerized cargo, Customs officials are inspecting only five percent of the nine-million containers that come into our ports on vessels each year.

The Coast Guard has estimated that $1.125 billion will be needed in the first year and $5.4 billion will be needed over the next ten years for the ports to comply with the federal regulations mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act, which was signed into law by President Bush with great fanfare in November 2002.  However, until this year's budget submission, President Bush had requested no funds – none! – for port security grants. 

Last year, Congress provided $125 million for port security grants.  Yet, despite telling the people that security is his top priority, President Bush proposes to cut port security funding by 62 percent.  Promises broken once again.

Upon adoption of the Levin-Collins amendment last March, the Senate version of the budget resolution assumed that $275 million will be appropriated for port security grants in Fiscal year 2005.  The bill before us today provides $150 million.  The additional $125 million in this amendment keeps the port security grant promise made in the Senate budget resolution.

The amendment also includes $100 million to secure our nation's drinking water systems. The nation's water infrastructure includes 75,000 dams and reservoirs; 168,000 public drinking water facilities, 16,000 publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities and thousand of miles of pipes, aqueducts, water distribution, and sewer lines.  We have assessed the vulnerabilities; why not protect this piece of critical infrastructure?

The amendment also includes $100 million for chemical security grants.  In March 2003, Homeland Security Secretary Ridge said, "There is no question that when we take a look at a chemical facility, the possibility that terrorists could use that economic asset and turn it into a weapon is something that we need to be concerned about and are concerned about."  Apparently that concern has vanished. 

Since 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security has done little to enhance security at the 66,000 chemical plants across this country.  This is frightening when security experts like Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution call the threat to chemical plants a "ticking time-bomb."

When Secretary Ridge testified last year, he said that the chemical industry was better suited to assess vulnerabilities and take appropriate security measures than the federal government.  But earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office submitted testimony to Congress saying that "despite the industry's voluntary efforts, the extent of security preparedness at U.S. chemical facilities is unknown."

When the IAIP Under Secretary, Frank Libutti, testified in March before the subcommittee, he said that the key in working with the chemical industry was "partnership" between the federal government and the private sector.  Yet, almost in the next sentence, he said that industry needs to "belly-up" when it comes to paying for improved security.  What kind of partnership is that?  We should be taking action now instead of rolling the dice hoping that an attack against a chemical plant doesn't happen.

My amendment also includes $50 million for hiring additional Federal Air Marshals.  The Administration has failed to meet its goal for hiring air marshals.  In fact, the Administration has allowed the number of air marshals to drop by nine percent this year.  With numerous terrorist threats against our airlines and a six percent increase in the number of flights, why allow the number of critical flights covered by Federal Air Marshals to drop?

Since 9/11, the Administration has increased the threat level risk to code orange six times.   On September 1, Secretary Ridge spoke before the American Legion's National Convention and said, "Terrorists in the 21st century represent a daunting enemy. They represent no country, no cause, no flag, no people - yet they have access to a steady supply of technologies, and funds, and willing recruits. They are undeniably methodical and maniacal in both their weaponry and will.  They seek to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons ... and before them lays a map of the world."

According to the New York Times, on September 7, Vice President Cheney said, "It's absolutely essential eight weeks from today, on November 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."  What an irresponsible statement for a public officer to make.  If the Vice President were interested in homeland security, rather than political posturing, he would be urging his Republican colleagues to support this amendment.

The President has said he would do, "whatever it takes" to defend America.  If the President was being straight with the American people when he said that, he would be supporting this amendment.  It provides $2 billion for a targeted set of programs.  It implements several 9/11 Commission recommendations.  The amendment funds programs that have been authorized by the Congress, but not funded by the President. 

We cannot make America safer with empty promises.  We can not America safer with duct tape.  My amendment funds the bricks and mortar of a strong homeland defense.  It could save countless lives and it offers real security not just empty rhetoric.  What could be wrong with spending a little more to protect the American people?  What could be wrong with keeping a promise?  What could be wrong with actually doing "whatever it takes"?

I urge adoption of the amendment.