[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 109 (Tuesday, September 3, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8052-S8078]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
proceed under Senator Lieberman's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          terrorism insurance

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have to believe that the President is not 
getting the right information from his staff; otherwise, knowing him, I 
cannot believe he would say some of the things he has said recently.
  I was running yesterday morning, and on Public Radio I heard a 
preview of the speech the President was going to give before a union in 
Pennsylvania. And I thought they must have made a mistake. Then, later 
in the day, I heard him complete that speech, and he went ahead just as 
they had said on Public Radio.
  As we consider homeland security and the measures we should take to 
defend America, I think it is important we talk about terrorism 
insurance. That is the issue I want to talk about. I believe the 
President has not received the proper information from his staff.
  Following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon 
about a year ago, many American businesses have had trouble purchasing 
affordable insurance covering acts of terrorism.
  As a consequence, many construction projects and real estate 
transactions have been delayed, interrupted, and in some cases 
canceled. We are talking about billions of dollars worth of projects 
that have been stalled, some terminated, solely because of the lack of 
being able to purchase terrorism insurance.
  These problems cost many American workers their jobs and prevent 
businesses from being as productive as they could be. Clearly, the lack 
of affordable terrorism insurance has had a harmful effect on our 
Nation's already troubled economy.
  I am glad we are back from our break and the President is back from 
his vacation. However, as I have indicated, yesterday, the President 
made some statements relating to terrorism insurance, about the need 
for Congress to move forward on terrorism insurance, that simply were 
without any fact.
  As millions of students across the country go back to school, I want 
them to understand that they must speak the truth. I repeat, I do not 
think the President said what he said yesterday based upon full 
knowledge of all the information.
  The truth, Mr. President, is Senate Democrats--because I have been 
here offering the unanimous consent request for months--have been 
leading the effort to pass an effective terrorism insurance bill--and 
we started on this last year--while Republicans have delayed and 
attempted to thwart this important legislation time after time. The 
President should know that. The leadership in the Congress of his party 
has not allowed us to go forward on this legislation.
  One of the statements he made before the union is: I am for hard 
hats, not trial lawyers.
  This is terrorism insurance. We should move it forward. I am 
confident everyone can see through these statements the President made 
as being without fact.
  I want to remind him and the people who give him advice--give him 
good information, good background information so he can speak with the 
full knowledge of the facts.
  We are eager to pass terrorism insurance. We have done everything 
within our power to do that. This would help workers, businesses, and 
the Nation's economy.
  Shortly after the terrorist attacks last year, our colleagues--
Senators Dodd, Sarbanes, and Schumer--developed a strong bill to help 
businesses get the affordable terrorism insurance they badly need.
  When we attempted to move this bill last December, the minority 
voiced no fundamental disagreement with the bill but argued over the 
number of amendments to be offered. This was done in an effort to 
prevent us from moving forward on this legislation. So we could not do 
it in December. We came right back and started on it. After having had 
many private attempts to get this legislation moving, we decided to go 
public and try to move it from the floor, right from where I stand.
  We tried offering in early spring unanimous consent agreements to 
take up the terrorism insurance legislation. Again, there was no 
objection to the base text or that the Dodd-Sarbanes-Schumer bill 
should be the vehicle we would bring to the floor. They wanted some 
amendments. We wanted to treat this as any other legislation. They said 
let us agree on the number of amendments. Whatever number we came up 
with wasn't appropriate. We could not move it. Finally, they simply 
disagreed with bringing up the bill at all.
  It is the right of the majority leader to decide which bills are 
brought to the floor. If the minority is opposed, they have the right 
to offer amendments and attempt to modify the text of the bill. We have 
offered to bring the bill up with amendments on each side so everyone 
could have the opportunity to make changes.
  Nevertheless, the minority continued to object and further prevented 
us from passing the terrorism insurance legislation.
  In April, the importance of the terrorism insurance legislation was 
enunciated by Secretary O'Neill in his testimony before the 
Appropriations Committee that the lack of terrorism insurance could 
cost America 1 percent of the GDP because major projects would not be 
able to get financing.
  Finally, we were able to get an agreement that we could bring the 
bill to the floor. We passed the legislation. And then came weeks and 
weeks of more stalling by the minority. We could not get agreement on 
appointing conferees. We attempted and attempted and attempted. First, 
they were upset because the ratio was 3 to 2, which is fairly standard. 
They said they wanted 4 to 3. So we came back

[[Page S8053]]

and said OK, and they still would not agree.
  Finally, we were able to get agreement on the appointment of 
conferees. But now nothing is happening in the conference. We cannot do 
that alone. So I hope the record is clear. I know we refer to ``the 
people downtown''--that is, the government representatives, the 
lobbyists who are concerned about this issue, the real estate and hotel 
owners, and these special interest groups. They know how we have tried 
to move this legislation. I only hope the people who have lost their 
jobs and are unable to move forward--these people in Pennsylvania 
yesterday who were told we are holding this up--understand that simply 
is not the truth.
  So I certainly hope this legislation can be completed and we can have 
a bill sent to the President. It is the right thing to do. The 
legislation is important, and I hope we can do it sooner rather than 
later.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the 
time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes of my time now to 
the Senator from Illinois who, I might say parenthetically, has been an 
extraordinarily thoughtful, constructive participant in the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee's consideration of the question of 
homeland security and, in that sense, has contributed mightily to the 
proposal we will put before the Chamber tonight. I am glad to yield 15 
minutes to Senator Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Lieberman for his 
leadership on the Governmental Affairs Committee. I think the record 
demonstrates that before the President called for the creation of a 
Department of Homeland Security, our committee, the Governmental 
Affairs Committee of the Senate, under Senator Lieberman's leadership, 
proposed a law to create such a Department.
  At the time, it is interesting because it was on a partisan roll 
call, if I remember correctly, nine Democrats for it, seven Republicans 
against it. We argued that a question of this magnitude, a challenge of 
this gravity, required a separate Department at that moment in time. 
Neither the President nor his loyal followers in the Senate were 
prepared to join us in that effort.
  So I salute Senator Lieberman for his leadership, and I am happy now 
that we have reached the point where we are speaking again, as we 
should when it comes to our Nation's defense, in a bipartisan manner. I 
hope that as we proceed to the debate on this bill, we can gather 
together again that same bipartisan force.
  There is nothing that says Congress or the Senate have to agree on 
everything and, frankly, if we did, it would probably betray the 
principles and values of this Nation. But when it comes to our national 
security and defense, particularly the creation of a Department of this 
magnitude, I think it is all well and good that when the debate ends, 
we do try to find some common ground.
  Our Government simply has to change and adapt to the challenge of 
international terrorism. A reorganization of this magnitude is not 
going to be simple--it is going to take some time--but this Congress is 
up to the task. Throughout our history, from 1789 when the first 
Congress created the first executive branch Departments of State, War, 
and Treasury, to 1988 when the latest Department, the Department of 
Veterans Affairs, was created, Congress has worked to make sure the 
Government was organized to do the job the American people asked of it.
  Protecting our Nation's people is our highest priority. On March 15, 
2001, almost 6 months before the attack on September 11, the U.S. 
Commission on National Security/21st Century, known by the shorthand 
name of the Hart-Rudman Commission, named after its co-chairmen the 
distinguished former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, released a 
report entitled ``Road Map For National Security: An Imperative For 
Change.'' The Commission was, unfortunately, prescient in seeing the 
vulnerability of the United States to terrorism. The No. 1 
recommendation of the Hart-Rudman Commission was to create a Department 
of Homeland Security.
  It is worth quoting for the record some of the report that came out 
of the Commission. It says, the combination of unconventional weapons 
proliferation with the persistence of international terrorism will end 
the relative invulnerability of the U.S. homeland to catastrophic 
attack.
  These words were written 6 months before September 11. They went on 
in their report to recommend the creation of an independent national 
homeland security agency, and they suggested there were some agencies 
of Government which naturally would come under the roof and under the 
authority of this new Department and quite effectively, or at least 
more effectively, defend the United States.
  The blueprint they laid out was really the basis for this bill we 
have before us, the Senate version, the Governmental Affairs version, 
from Senator Lieberman. The backbone of the new Department will be 
FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, along with the 
Departments guarding our borders and our perimeter. This new Department 
everyone sees as a way to protect our country more robustly.
  Some have questioned, though, how a new Department and how 
reorganizing Government will really make us any safer. Right now there 
are more than 45 agencies in the Federal Government with some 
responsibility for homeland security. If we look at it, it is just too 
diffuse. It cannot be focused. It cannot be coordinated. In the words 
of my friend and former House colleague, Gov. Tom Ridge, we are going 
to, frankly, not have the force multipliers we need that organization 
and coordination will bring.

  Some of my colleagues have charged we are moving too quickly. Well, I 
happen to agree with the premise that this race to enact this 
legislation by September 11 of this year, on the 1-year anniversary of 
that terrible disaster, was precipitous. It would have been a miracle 
if we had been able to create a bill that quickly which would have 
really met the task. It is better for us to take the additional time to 
do it right. To meet some self-imposed deadline or some deadline 
imposed by the press or our critics does not make a lot of sense when 
we are talking about a Department that is going to be facing the 
responsibility of protecting America for decades to come.
  As a member of the committee, I want to report to our colleagues that 
I think our committee has done its job. This does not mean we should 
not debate the issue and deliberate on some alternatives and some 
modifications. What we have before us is an effort, backed by 
bipartisan work for many years under both Republican and Democrat 
chairmen. This committee has held 18 hearings since last September 11 
setting up this new Department. It is a committee that has held a 
series of hearings over the last 4 or 5 years on the issues that are 
involved.
  I remind my colleagues that this extensive body of work of this 
committee and its chairman allowed our committee to report out a bill 
on May 22. Once the President decided he wanted a similar Department, 
we tried to coordinate his intentions with our own. Realizing that all 
wisdom does not reside in one branch of Government or the other, we 
have listened to the President's suggestions. I am hopeful he will be 
open to our own.
  One of the things I included in this as an element that was of 
particular personal interest related to the whole question of 
information technology. The proposal to restructure 28 agencies into a 
new, unified Homeland Security Department poses a complex challenge to 
integrate the system's infrastructure of our information technology to 
support the new Department's mission.
  Let me get away from these high falutin' words, high sounding words, 
and get back to the real world where I live, because I am not part of 
this computer generation. I struggle with my own computers and e-mail 
to try to be up to speed. In the amendment that I adopted, what we are 
really saying to the Office of Management and Budget

[[Page S8054]]

is: We want you to have a special person, a special group, assigned the 
responsibility to coordinate the architecture of the computers that are 
supposed to be cooperating and working together in all of the different 
intelligence agencies.
  I am sorry to report to the Senate and to the people following this 
debate that that does not exist today. In fact, it has been a very low 
priority. If we look at the sorry state of affairs of computers at 
agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, we can certainly 
understand the need for this amendment. Currently, each of the agencies 
we expect to consolidate has its own separate information technology 
budget and program--the Coast Guard, Customs, FEMA, INS, Secret 
Service, Transportation Security Administration, and others. Each one 
has a unique system that does not necessarily have the capacity to 
communicate or coordinate these activities. Frankly, is that not what 
this debate is all about, so that all the agencies of the Federal 
Government will coordinate their resources, their authority, and their 
wisdom into one unified effort to create the force multiplier that 
Governor Ridge mentioned?

  Because these divergent systems need to be linked, it is important to 
ask key questions now to ensure this new Department will help the 
agencies brought together and others outside to coordinate their 
communication and share information. It is equally important to 
establish appropriate links between the Homeland Security Department 
and other agencies, such as the CIA, the National Security Agency, the 
Department of Defense, the FBI, the State Department, and State and 
local officials, which may not be embraced under the Homeland Security 
Department's organizational umbrella.
  Given the current state of affairs in the Federal information 
technology systems reflected in incomprehensible delays in meeting 
congressional mandates, I think this is long overdue. I will give two 
illustrations of why this is timely.
  Six years ago, Congress mandated the Customs Department and INS to 
establish a database to record those exiting the United States with 
visitor's visas. Those coming into the United States in many instances 
need visas to be in the United States, and we thought we should keep 
track of those who are leaving so we will know the net number of visa 
holders in the United States, which can range in the tens of millions 
at any given time.
  Six years ago, Congress said to the INS: Keep track of people leaving 
with a visa. Six years later, it is still not done. It has not been 
accomplished. The inspector general at the Department of Justice tells 
us it is years away.
  So when Attorney General Ashcroft said, to make America safer, we are 
going to take the fingerprints and photographs of all people coming 
into the United States on a visa, I am sure people around America were 
nodding their heads saying, I guess that is necessary; it is certainly 
reasonable. Well, it is technologically impossible today to do it. We 
do not have the computer capability to keep track of people leaving the 
United States with a visa, let alone the millions coming into the 
United States on visas.
  So for the Attorney General to make that suggestion is to say that he 
is going to go drill for oil on the Moon. It is not going to happen--
not until we come a long way from where we are today.
  We also said, incidentally, to the FBI and the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service: We notice that they both collect fingerprints. 
Can they merge their databases so that law enforcement agencies across 
the Federal Government, across the Nation, around the world, will have 
access to a common database of fingerprints collected by the United 
States? We asked them to do that 3 years ago. It still has not been 
done.
  So when it comes to information technology, do not delude yourself 
into believing we are where we ought to be. We are not. The creation of 
this Department and the amendment which Senator Lieberman and others 
were happy to accept and said nice things about, I hope will move 
forward in achieving that goal.

  The enterprise architecture and resulting systems must be designed 
for interoperability between many different agencies. I hope we get 
this achieved quickly.
  I have had a great deal of frustration, even anger, over the lack of 
progress we have made since September 11. To have the new person in 
charge of information technology from the FBI testify before the 
Judiciary Committee saying it will be 2 years before the FBI is up to 
speed with their computers is totally unacceptable. Members should not 
stand for that one second. To think one can go to any computer store in 
any major city in America and buy computers with better capability than 
the computers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is shameful. That 
exists today; it should change. This bill will be part of the change.
  Also, I raise another issue briefly. After the events of September 
11, we heard from a number of people--Governor Ridge, Secretary 
Thompson of the Department of Health and Human Services--about concern 
for our Nation's food supply and its vulnerability to attack. We have 
to be mindful and sensitive. I thank Senator Lieberman for including my 
language on food safety and security in this legislation, directing the 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to contract with the 
National Academy of Sciences to conduct a detailed study to review all 
Federal statutes and regulations affecting the safety and security of 
the food supply, as well as the current organizational structure of 
food safety oversight to figure out if we can do it better. I think we 
can. I believed that for a long time. I pushed for better coordination, 
better definition, better objectives for food safety. Now, this is a 
different level. It is not a question of food that can be contaminated 
by natural causes, but food that could be jeopardized and contaminated 
by enemies of the United States. It is part of the same consideration 
but raises it to a much higher level.
  I close by thanking Senator Lieberman for his leadership on this 
issue. This reorganization is complicated. Although we are a great 
deliberative body, we have to roll up our sleeves and deal with it. We 
approach the anniversary of September 11 and know further attacks are 
not only possible, but in many instances our open society invites them. 
We do not have the luxury of waiting. If there were another attack 
since last September 11, this bill would have passed out of here a lot 
sooner. Now that we have the time to do it, let's do it and do it 
right.
  I thank Senator Lieberman for his leadership, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin for his 
statement and for the contributions he made substantively to the 
proposal and for his eloquent advocacy for the urgent necessity to get 
together and create a Department of Homeland Security.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Maine?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume from the time of Senator Thompson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the legislation before 
the Senate that will result in the most significant reorganization of 
the executive branch in more than 50 years. The creation of a Cabinet-
level Department of Homeland Security is of fundamental importance to 
our national security. I believe it is one of the most important pieces 
of legislation we will consider during this Congress.
  In the year since the terrorist attacks on our Nation, much has been 
done to make our country more secure. Congress has approved billions of 
dollars to secure our borders, protect critical infrastructure, train 
and equip first responders, and better detect and respond to a 
bioterrorism attack. Our brave men and women in uniform have been 
fighting valiantly in Afghanistan and have succeeded in many of the 
goals in the war against terrorism.
  The creation of the Department of Homeland Security is another 
important step in our efforts to secure our Nation against another 
terrorist attack. This sweeping reorganization dwarfs any corporate 
merger that you can think of. It involves some 200,000 employees and 
nearly $40 billion in budget. The task before the Senate is truly 
daunting, and it is important we get the job done right.

[[Page S8055]]

  Currently, as many as 100 Federal agencies are responsible for 
homeland security. But not one of them has homeland security as its 
principal mission. That is the problem with our current organizational 
structure. With that many entities responsible, nobody is accountable 
and turf battles and bureaucratic disputes are virtually inevitable.
  If we are to overcome these problems and create a national security 
structure that can defend our Nation, we must unite the current 
patchwork of agencies into a single new Department of Homeland 
Security. This agency would work to secure our borders, help protect 
our ports, our transportation sector, and protect our critical 
infrastructure. It would synthesize and analyze homeland security 
intelligence from multiple sources, thus lessening the possibility of 
intelligence breakdowns or lack of communication. Furthermore, the new 
domestic security structure would coordinate Federal communications 
regarding threats and preparedness with State and local governments, as 
well as with the private sector.
  Our efforts to create a new Department of Homeland Security will help 
to remedy many of the current weaknesses of the past and thus help to 
protect us against future terrorist attacks.
  As a member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which held 
extensive hearings on the reorganization legislation, I have had the 
opportunity to consider a multitude of ideas and concepts regarding the 
creation of the new Department. We heard excellent testimony from 
Governor Ridge, from the Directors of the FBI and the CIA, and from a 
host of other experts. They all shed light on the problems that are 
created by our current disorganization in the area of homeland 
security. They all shed light on the problems that have impaired our 
ability to defend our homeland and on the threats that we now face and 
inevitably will face in the future.
  During the committee's consideration of this bill, I expressed 
concerns that in our effort to create a new Department, we must be 
careful to protect the traditional missions, the very important 
missions of the agencies that are being assembled into this giant new 
department. In particular, I believe the Coast Guard's traditional 
functions, such as search and rescue and marine resource protection, 
must be protected and maintained.
  Since the tragic events of September 11, the Coast Guard's focus has 
shifted dramatically to homeland security. I talked with Coast Guard 
officers in Portland, ME, who told me the amount of time they are now 
spending on port security operations and inspecting foreign vessels 
coming into the harbor in Portland. I have no doubt these are very 
important missions and that the Coast Guard plays an essential role in 
homeland security. And I believe it should play a leading role in the 
new Department. However, we know the Coast Guard cannot continue to 
focus on homeland security missions without jeopardizing its 
traditional focus. I am concerned that if the current resource 
allocation is maintained and the Coast Guard continues to perform these 
new homeland security responsibilities, its traditional missions will 
be sacrificed.

  The President's budget goes a long way to try to remedy this problem 
by allocating significant new funds for the Coast Guard. But we also 
need to make sure the organizational structure in the new Department 
also safeguards the Coast Guard's traditional mission.
  For example, prior to September 11, port security missions accounted 
for approximately 2 percent of the Coast Guard's resources. Immediately 
following the terrorist attacks, the Coast Guard deployed 59 percent of 
its resources to port security and safety missions. As a result, many 
of the aircraft and vessels traditionally used for search and rescue 
were far removed from their optimal locations for that function. Even 
after the immediate impact of the September 11 attacks subsided, its 
impact on the resources of the Coast Guard remained. Indeed, from April 
through June of this year, the Coast Guard devoted 9 percent fewer 
hours on search and rescue missions than it did in the year before.
  Because of the Coast Guard's importance to coastal areas throughout 
our Nation, any reduction in its traditional functions is cause for 
great concern. Those of us who represent coastal States know how 
absolutely vital the mission of the Coast Guard is. Last year alone, 
the Coast Guard performed over 39,000 search and rescue missions and 
saved more than 4,000 lives. On a typical day, the Coast Guard 
interdicts and rescues 14 illegal immigrants, inspects and repairs 135 
buoys, helps over 2,500 commercial ships navigate in and out of U.S. 
ports, and saves 10 lives. That is on a typical day. In short, the 
Coast Guard's traditional missions are of vital importance and they 
simply must be preserved.
  Let me take a moment to talk about the Coast Guard's impact and its 
importance in my home State of Maine. Each year, the Coast Guard 
performs about 300 search and rescue missions in my State. These 
missions are literally a matter of life and death. Since October of 
1999, 14 commercial fishermen have lost their lives at sea. Commercial 
fishing is one of the most dangerous of occupations, and the Coast 
Guard every year saves fishermen who get into trouble. How many more 
would have died or been injured if the nearest Coast Guard cutter had 
not been in port? How many more fishermen or recreational boaters will 
lose their lives if the local Coast Guard stations must devote the vast 
majority of their time to homeland security functions?
  I agree that the Coast Guard must perform homeland security 
functions. The role the Coast Guard is playing in securing our ports is 
vitally important. But it is also vitally important that it not do so 
at the expense of its traditional missions.
  To respond to this challenge, Senator Stevens of Alaska and I teamed 
up to offer an amendment during the Governmental Affairs Committee 
markup of this legislation. We offered a successful amendment to 
preserve the traditional functions of the Coast Guard, even as the 
agency is moved into the new Department of Homeland Security. I want to 
recognize Senator Stevens and thank him for his leadership on this 
issue, as well as recognize the support of our colleagues who voted for 
our amendment in committee.
  Our amendment establishes the right balance between homeland security 
functions and the traditional missions of the Coast Guard. It ensures 
that the Coast Guard's non-homeland-security functions shall be 
maintained after its transfer into the new Department but also provides 
for flexibility in the event of a national emergency or an attack on 
our Nation.

  The amendment also has the Commandant of the Coast Guard report 
directly to the Secretary. In the chairman's draft, he would not have 
done so. Thus, his role would have been devalued or demoted. Our 
amendment, the Stevens-Collins amendment, remedies that problem.
  Our amendment will help to protect our coastal communities' 
economies, their way of life, and their loved ones, while Americans, 
wherever they live, can rest assured that the Coast Guard will perform 
its necessary and vital homeland security functions. I believe our 
language strikes the right balance.
  As we craft this bill, it is also important that we never forget who 
is on the front lines in the event of a national emergency. We learned 
on September 11 who responds. It is not the response of people in 
Washington. The people who are on the front lines are our police 
officers, our firefighters, and our emergency medical personnel. That 
is why we need to make sure the new Department coordinates its 
activities and supports the activities of the local first responders.
  I thank Senator Feingold for his leadership in ensuring that the 
interests of the first responders are ever in our mind. I worked with 
him as well as with Senator Carper on an amendment in committee that 
strengthens the role of first responders in homeland security, that 
recognizes their contributions.
  We offered an amendment to enhance the cooperation and coordination 
among State and local first responders. The new Department will be 
required to designate an employee to be based in each and every 1 of 
the 50 States to be a liaison to State and local governments. I think 
that is so important. And it recognizes that this is a joint effort.
  Similarly, an amendment Senator Carnahan and I offered will help our

[[Page S8056]]

community fire departments by expanding the current grant program known 
as the FIRE Program. As I am sure the Presiding Officer knows, because 
he represents a rural State, as I do, the FIRE Program has been so 
important in helping a lot of our small, rural fire departments upgrade 
their equipment and their training.
  The amendment the Senator from Missouri and I offered in committee 
would expand the FIRE Program and provide fire departments with the 
ability over 3 years to receive maximum grants of $100,000 to hire 
personnel. When I talk to my fire chiefs at home, they tell me that not 
only do they need help with equipment and training but they need more 
firefighters.
  For those of us who went to New York City, one of the memories I will 
carry with me forever was talking with the fire commissioner and 
learning how many firefighters lost their lives on September 11. I will 
never forget his telling me that more firefighters died on that day 
than in the previous 70 years of the New York City Fire Department. It 
is the firefighters, the police officers, the emergency medical 
personnel who are always first on the scene. We cannot forget that 
these brave individuals will be the first to be called upon if and when 
a terrorist attack again occurs.
  The New Department of Homeland Security is an essential component of 
our response to current and future threats. As the brutal attacks of 
September 11 demonstrated, distance from our enemies and the barriers 
of oceans no longer guarantee the security of our homeland. The bill we 
are considering today is another important step in preserving and 
strengthening our homeland security. I believe this legislation will 
help to make our Nation more secure, and I am hopeful that we will pass 
it quickly after due consideration.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes from the time 
controlled by Senator Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are here today for three major reasons. 
The first is the obvious need to restructure our security to confront 
new threats that were unanticipated in the cold war. The thought is 
that we do need to create a Department of Homeland Security. I support 
that. We are also here today because of the groundbreaking work of 
Senator Lieberman and colleagues on the Governmental Affairs Committee. 
Before this proposal was invoked by the administration, they were 
working on it. They were developing through hearings the substance to 
make the presentation for which we are here today. But finally, we are 
here today because of Senator Byrd's insistence that we consider this 
very significant reorganization in the context of our Constitution and 
of our responsibility as Members of the Senate to ensure we maintain 
the constitutional balance that is the heart of this Government.
  It would be ironic indeed that in the name of winning the war on 
terror, we lost the very goal we were trying to protect, which is a 
constitutional government in which all of us play a significant role--
the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary.
  I think it is important, as we consider this legislation, to look 
carefully and thoughtfully at this proposed reorganization. It is an 
extraordinary combination of governmental entities. Approximately 
170,000 employees will be combined into this new Department. It will 
affect 22 existing agencies. At least 11 full Senate committees have 
oversight responsibilities for these existing agencies.
  This is an extraordinary moment, and we have to act deliberately, 
carefully, and thoughtfully. That is why I think it is so critical that 
this debate take place and why it was so important that Senator Byrd 
was able to indeed encourage and inspire and in many respects direct 
the debate we are having today.
  One of the major elements within this organization--there are many, 
and I would like to allude to a few--is the treatment of intelligence. 
We understood very starkly and very tragically on September 11 that 
intelligence is probably the key to successful protection of the United 
States, our home. We understood that. And now we have to take that 
lesson and apply it.
  One of the proposals made by the administration is to create an 
intelligence capacity within the new Department of Homeland Security. I 
agree with that. I think this new Department has to have an 
intelligence capacity. Unfortunately, in terms of the administration's 
proposal, I think there are two clear shortcomings. First, they have 
established the intelligence capacity in the context of the 
infrastructure protection responsibilities of this new Department. 
Clearly, intelligence has to go beyond simply protecting our 
infrastructure.
  As Senator Lieberman indicated previously in some of his comments, 
the World Trade Center and other targets were not properly considered 
critical infrastructure in the United States. But certainly on 
September 11 it was the target of terrorists. I think we have to 
disassociate the intelligence aspects of the Department in the very 
narrow view of infrastructure protection.
  The amendment which Senator Lieberman will propose once we move to 
the bill will effectively address the issue and the problems.
  There is also another problem; that is, the administration would only 
allow this intelligence operation within the new Homeland Security 
Department to take data provided by other agencies and analyze it. It 
does not give that entity the right to reach out and get raw 
intelligence data. I think that has to be a critical responsibility and 
a critical authority of this new intelligence division.
  Again, the bill that I believe Senator Lieberman will submit at the 
conclusion of this debate will have that authority in the Homeland 
Security Department. That is critical.
  The essence here is to have a place in the Government where--as said 
so often because it is so true--all the dots are connected. But you 
can't do that and rely on the intelligence products of other agencies. 
You can't do that if your focus is restricted to infrastructure 
protection.
  As a result, I think this is illustrative of some of the problems of 
the administration's proposal, and certainly some of the problems of 
the House bill. I should point out, as has been pointed out before, 
that we are now debating whether the Senate will bring it up for 
consideration.
  There are other areas that are of concern to me. One has just been 
discussed quite articulately by my colleague and friend from Maine, 
Senator Collins; that is the Coast Guard. Here is an agency which, 
after September 11, has been decisively engaged in port protection. 
Port protection by the Coast Guard has gone from a rather minor 
operation before September 11 to one of their major operations. We have 
all seen that. In my community of Providence, RI, we have the 
Narragansett Bay. We have the Port of Providence. For the first time in 
my memory--and perhaps since World War II--we are seeing Coast Guard 
cutters escorting LNG tankers through the Narragansett Bay while the 
whole waterway was shut down by police and the National Guard. That is 
a time-consuming operation and one which has been replicated in the 361 
ports of the United States. Also adding to that is the Coast Guard's 
obligation to patrol about 95,000 miles of coastline.
  The problem, though, is, as my colleague from Maine pointed out, that 
the Coast Guard has many other responsibilities. She referred to a 
typical day. On a typical day, the Coast Guard conducts 109 search and 
rescue missions, saves 10 lives, assists 92 boaters in trouble, and 
seizes 169 pounds of marijuana and 360 pounds of cocaine worth about 
$9.6 million. They intercept illegal immigrants coming into the United 
States. They respond to calls with respect to hazardous chemical 
spills. They inspect and repair boats. They assist nearly 200,000 tons 
of shipping just in the Great Lakes during the winter season alone. 
What will happen to these other responsibilities?
  I know the committee has dealt with this and has tried to strike a 
balance. But it is an area of concern, and it is an area that 
illustrates the difficulty of combining all of these agencies with the 
mission of homeland security which might trump other legitimate 
missions. We have to be careful with

[[Page S8057]]

this. In the course of our debate and discussion, I think we have to 
focus on this issue and other issues.
  Much can be said in a similar vein about the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service. Here you have an agency which has two major 
responsibilities: Protect the borders from illegal entry and at the 
same time provide assistance to those individuals who are in the United 
States legally who want to become citizens or who are here on some type 
of temporary protective status and need to be supervised by the United 
States. Those are diametrically opposed responsibilities.
  We have to ask ourselves the question: If the INS is part of the 
Department of Homeland Security, will they emphasize one and de-
emphasize the other? I think, frankly, most people will assume they 
will emphasize protecting the borders of the United States. After all, 
that is probably the most important issue with respect to homeland 
security.
  What happens to the literally millions of individuals in the United 
States who legitimately need the services of the INS? Already today, 
there is a backlog of approximately 5 million cases around the country 
in terms of applications to the INS for clarification of status. 
Indeed, as the National Immigration Forum noted in their words, ``it is 
hard to imagine that a Federal agency whose primary issue is to deter 
terrorism will be able to strike and maintain an appropriate balance 
between admitting newcomers and deterring security threats.''
  We see that these contradictions are replete throughout the 
reorganization. I again think a careful, thorough, and complete 
deliberation should be attendant to the consideration of this 
legislation.
  I would like to mention just briefly a final area, an area which I 
think will come back again and again; that is, the administration's 
proposal--and the proposal in the House of Representatives--to put up 
severe barriers to the right of Federal employees to organize 
collectively and to exercise their rights; and, also, the protection 
for the Civil Service.
  We have to be very conscious of this and ask the very fundamental 
question: Why are we attempting to undercut provisions for which no 
one, I think, has seriously made the case they have interfered with our 
ability to conduct the war on terror, to conduct intelligence 
operations?
  As you probably realize, President Kennedy, 40 years ago, under 
executive order, gave Federal employees the right to organize in 
collective bargaining units. President Nixon expanded those rights in 
1969. In 1978, the Civil Service Reform Act codified most of these 
executive orders.
  Throughout the course of our history, these responsibilities have 
also given the President the authority to make exemptions for national 
security. And they have made those exemptions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield one additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Senator.
  Over the course of our history, certainly in the 40 years, since 
these rights became established by executive order, there have always 
been appropriate exemptions in which the President could, for national 
security reasons, exempt individual employees or groups of employees 
from these rights. Our Presidents have done that. As a result, we have 
a situation in which I think a classic statement applies: If it is not 
broke, why are we trying to fix it? And it is not broken.
  Again, in my final few moments, I heard from my colleague from 
Maine--and I have heard it again and again--those firefighters 
struggling up the stairs of the World Trade Center were union 
employees. No one checked with their bargaining agent before going up 
those stairs. In fact, I don't think they even checked with some of 
their captains and battalion commanders. They went up those upstairs 
because it was their job and their duty and their lives. And many of 
them paid with their lives.
  It is that spirit that emanates from those firefighters that 
encourages and embraces all dedicated civil servants in our Federal 
Government. I think to pursue this initiative is really, in a way, a 
slap at them, an insult to what they bring each and every day to their 
jobs, to their tasks, to their duty.
  So I hope we adopt provisions, which I believe the Lieberman bill 
has, which recognize the right to organize, the right for civil service 
protections, and also flexibility, for management, by the President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time does the distinguished Senator 
from South Carolina wish to have?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Thirty minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask the Senator, could you make it 20? Could we try for 
20 to start with?
  Mr. HOLLINGS: I will try to start with 20.
  Mr. BYRD. I certainly want to be considerate with this Senator, this 
very senior Member of the body. And I am glad that he is a Member at 
this time.
  Let's say 20 minutes at this point. My time is limited, but let's 
start with that and see how we come out.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, right quickly, the distinguished Senator 
from Rhode Island was talking about the firemen running up those steps. 
It brings to mind 4 years ago the creation of the Office of Domestic 
Preparedness by this Congress.
  We were confronting terrorism long before 9/11. Mr. President, 
144,000 individuals have been through schools in Nevada, New Mexico, 
Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama. There are five big schools there to 
train the first responders. And that training has been really salutary 
in the sense that in the state of New York we have had over 17,000 
first responders who were trained in the ODP program. So I say to the 
Senator, many who rushed up those steps had received the training and 
were responding in accordance with the foreseeability that we had in 
the congressional branch with respect to terrorism.
  I jump right quickly, with my time limited, to the hearings that we 
had. We hear so much about Hart-Rudman. We had hearings in the Senate, 
not just deciding on Hart-Rudman, that large bureaucracy, but, on the 
contrary, after 3 days of hearings in the State-Justice-Commerce 
Subcommittee of Appropriations we came down with a further beefing up 
of the Office of Domestic Preparedness. At the present time, ODP has a 
budget of $1.2 billion. We already have at the desk, unanimously 
approved by the Appropriations Committee and ready for debate, an 
increase of $1 billion, some $2.2 billion.
  In short, we were on the floor of the Senate on 9/11 debating 
terrorism. I emphasize that because they go right to the point and say 
they don't believe in domestic security.
  We have been working on domestic security since immediately after 9/
11. I got together--and I must tell this story because it has already 
passed me with respect to the gun crowd--but be that as it may, I sat 
down with the El Al chief pilot from Israel who flew over from Tel Aviv 
and sat down and talked with us, myself and about four other Senators.
  At that seating, he emphasized the security of the cockpit door 
because I asked him: Sir, how is it that El Al, the airline most 
subject to be under the gun, where the terrorists do not even wait now, 
for example, to get to a plane--they shoot up the ticket counter like 
they did out in Los Angeles--that you have not had a hijacking in 30 
years?
  He said: There is one way to prevent hijackings. Secure the cockpit 
door, and never open that door in flight.
  Let me emphasize, he said: My wife can be assaulted in the cabin. I 
would go straight to the ground, and law enforcement would meet me 
there.
  In flight, you do not want to give responsibility to the pilots for 
law and order. You give the pilots the responsibility for flying the 
plane. If they have the responsibility, with a gun, for law and order, 
then they have made a bad mistake because the pilots cannot prevent a 
plane from being hijacked. The enemy is not a single hijacker. There 
are teams of terrorists, suicidal terrorists, who do not mind losing 
their lives. And, yes, you can stop one or two, maybe, but the next 
three will take that plane over, and you will have a 9/11.

[[Page S8058]]

  I think our responsibility in this particular debate is--in addition 
to going up to New York on Friday, in addition to having the debate 
here, and a whole day turned over on next Wednesday, which I commend--
but the main thing is for us to act and assume the responsibility that 
a 9/11 never happens again.
  Once you secure that door--Delta Airlines has gone along with it, 
JetBlue is going along with it, but we are still debating it.
  We immediately moved for airline security. We passed it 100-0 in a 
bipartisan bill. You see in the morning paper it is not turf. This 
Senate voted to put the Transportation Security Administration in the 
Justice Department. I was not trying to hold it because I am chairman 
of the Transportation Committee. I have commerce, science, and 
transportation. I was not trying to hold it in my committee. I voted to 
put it in Justice and defended this position on the House side arguing 
that Justice would get it up and going.
  Instead I got a bureaucrat who was more interested in the logo and 
his office equipment and did not even talk to the airline managers. We 
confirmed--the pressure was on--before Christmas.
  We voted without the committee confirming this particular gentlemen. 
We just reported it out and we had a vote on it without any debate 
whatsoever. But now we are behind the curve and we have Admiral Malloy 
over there, and I think he is a great man, and I think we can do a lot 
of repairing and we are going to be realistic about what we can 
accomplish. There is no use arguing about what kind of terminal dates 
and everything else. We live in the real world and we must work 
together.
  We put in rail security, we put in seaport security before Christmas 
of last year. You don't find the administration pressuring the House to 
get going to pass it. They are still fussing about fees and taxes over 
there. They don't want to pay for it. It is domestic politics, 
reelection, not seaport security.
  So there we are. We can go down the list of all the work we have done 
on it, and here comes this bill and what does it do? It organizes every 
entity that did not fail, like the Coast Guard, FEMA, and the 
Agriculture Department and everything else, and ignores the ones that 
did fail. 9/11 was an intelligence failure, and you will not get that 
out of the Select Committee on Intelligence that is investigating 
between the House and Senate because the entities of this 
administration--I am not saying the President knew anything will not be 
embarrassed. I am sure if the President knew anything he would have put 
measures in place to avoid it. But I can tell you here and now that the 
committee that is investigating is not going to speak out about the 
intelligence failure because it would reflect, if you please, poorly on 
the President's management of their FBI, their CIA, their National 
Security Agency.
  I have been on the Intelligence Committee. In fact, I started in this 
work in 1954 on the Hoover Commission. The same problem we had almost 
50 years ago with the FBI talking to the CIA, and the CIA talking to 
the FBI, persists today. I have gotten together with Bob Mueller, and 
he is a good man. He has hired some CIA officials. Last year before 
Thanksgiving, we gave him $750 million to clean up his computerization. 
He reorganized the Department and instituted a Department of Domestic 
Intelligence and now is talking, I understand, to George Tenet, the 
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
  The CIA failed on 9/11. We already had the blowing up of the World 
Trade Towers almost 10 years ago. But the CIA said we didn't know a 
plane could be used. They did not know a plane could be used? They had 
the direct record in 1994.
  In 1994, they had the Islamic group that was going to blow up the 
Eiffel Tower. Then, in 1995, they were working on a case out there in 
the Philippines where they uncovered a plan to blow up 12 planes at one 
time. The documents revealed that the terrorists, who had links to al 
Qaida, planned to ram a plane into the CIA building itself. But now 
they say they had no idea you could fly a plane into a building. Then 
al-Qaida blew up our embassies and blew up the USS Cole. They knew.
  Right to the point, they had warned about this crowd so much so that 
the President actually had on his desk on September 10--the day 
before--a plan to attack Afghanistan. We had the intelligence. We just 
were not paying attention. The FBI also failed. There isn't any 
question about that. We know about the flight schools in Arizona. Agent 
Williams sent notice saying: There is something wrong. These people of 
Mideastern descent are trying to learn how to fly. We believe they are 
connected to fundamentalist groups, something's not right to me.
  That word never did get up to the head of the FBI or the President of 
the United States. That was an intelligence failure. But we had the 
woman--Agent Coleen Rowley, I think her name was. When they arrested 
Moussaoui in Minnesota, they became so exercised she wrote a memo that: 
Look, this fellow doesn't want to learn how to take-off or land. He 
only wants to learn how to fly. We need to investigate him further. But 
the Minnesota field office was denied permission for a warrant.
  Why should we investigate him further? Because he was training to run 
a plane into the World Trade Towers. That is the record. I am not on 
any Intelligence Committee. I am not giving you any security 
information. If you want any kind of information along that line, there 
is a wonderful article that appeared in Time magazine on May 27, 2002.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From Time Magazine, May 27, 2002]

                     How the U.S. Missed the Clues

                          (By Michael Elliott)

       None of this is pretty. In the immediate aftermath of the 
     Sept. 11 attacks, members of the American political 
     establishment stood together, determined to fight the war 
     against terrorism, supporting those in military uniform and 
     the buttoned-down bureaucrats whose job it was to make sure 
     that something so awful would not happen again. Everyone--
     inside the Bush Administration as well as outside it--knew 
     there had been massive failures of intelligence in the period 
     before the attacks. But after Sept. 11, the Administration 
     earned a reputation for steely-eyed competence, and its 
     political opponents couched their legitimate criticism in 
     language politer than that to which Washington is accustomed. 
     That was then. In the past month, a series of disclosures 
     have cast doubt on the most basic abilities of the national-
     security establishment. The Administration has looked 
     alternately shifty and defensive; Democrats--some of them 
     presidential candidates-in-waiting--have postured on 
     motormouth TV. And the nation has been forced into a period 
     of painful second-guessing, asking whether Sept. 11 could 
     have been prevented. In August, it turns out, the President 
     was briefed by the CIA on the possibility that al-Qaeda, the 
     terrorist network headed by Osama bin Laden, might use 
     hijacked airliners to win concessions from the U.S. Sources 
     tell TIME that the briefing, which was first reported by CBS 
     News, was in response to a request by Bush for detailed 
     information on the kind of threat posed by al-Qaeda, not to 
     American interests overseas--which had long preoccupied the 
     spooks--but at home. During the period in which the brief was 
     prepared, says a senior intelligence official, the CIA came 
     to the conclusion that ``al-Qaeda was determined to attack 
     the U.S.'' After the strike came, White House sources 
     concede, the Administration made a conscious decision not to 
     disclose the August briefing, hoping that it would be 
     discussed ``in context''--and months later--when 
     congressional investigations into the attacks eventually got 
     under way. And that wasn't the only embarrassing paper kept 
     under wraps. Earlier this month, the Associated Press 
     reported new details from a July 2001 memo by an FBI agent in 
     Pheonix, Ariz., who presciently noted a pattern of Arab men 
     signing up at flight schools. The agent, Kenneth Williams, 
     42, has spent 11 years working in an FBI antiterrorism task 
     force. He recommended an investigation to determine whether 
     al-Qaeda operatives were training at the schools. He was 
     ignored, and after the existence of the memo became known, 
     the FBI insisted that even if it had been acted upon, it 
     would not have led to the detention of the Sept. 11 
     hijackers. (Only one of them, Hani Hanjour, had trained in 
     Arizona, and did so before Williams focused on flight 
     school.) But sources tell TIME that at least one of the men 
     Williams had under watch--a Muslim who has now left the 
     U.S.--did indeed have al-Qaeda links. And Williams identified 
     a second pair of suspected Islamic radicals now living in the 
     U.S. as resident aliens, the sources say. They are currently 
     under FBI surveillance. As if those missed signals weren't 
     enough, last week it was also disclosed that in August, when 
     the U.S. detained Zacarias
       Moussaoui--a man the French government knew was associated 
     with Islamic extremists and who apparently wanted to learn to 
     fly

[[Page S8059]]

     jumbo jets but not land them, and has since been charged with 
     complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks--the FBI told nobody in 
     the White House's Counterterrorism Security Group. But the 
     CSG, which comes under the aegis of National Security Adviser 
     Condoleezza Rice, is supposed to coordinate the government's 
     response to terrorist threats.
       At high levels of government, the awful possibility is 
     dawning that things could have been different. ``If we'd had 
     access to Moussaoui, if we'd had access to the Phoenix memo, 
     could we have broken up the plot?'' asks a White House 
     official who works on counterterrorism. Then he answers his 
     own question: ``We would have taken action, and there's at 
     least a distinct possibility that we may at the very least 
     have delayed it.'' Bush was outraged at the suggestion that 
     he might have been warned about impending strikes and failed 
     to act. To ward off Democratic criticism, Vice President Dick 
     Cheney warned against trying to ``seek political advantage'' 
     from the new revelations; such commentary, he said, ``is 
     thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy of national 
     leaders in a time of war.'' He should have saved his breath; 
     the blame game is under way, long before the lessons of all 
     that happened last summer have been absorbed. And one thing 
     we now know: there plenty of blame to go around.
       George W. Bush, they say, is a quick study, and last summer 
     he needed to be. Threats and warnings of possible terrorist 
     outrages against American interests were howling into 
     Washington like a dirty blizzard. Fighting terrorism hadn't 
     been a top priority in the early months of the 
     Administration; cutting taxes, building a missile shield and 
     other agenda had crowded it out. Bush's national-security 
     aides had been warned during the transition that there was an 
     al-Qaeda presence in the U.S., but in the first months of the 
     Administration, says one official, a sense of urgency was 
     lacking: ``They were new to this stuff.''
       By the time Bush left for a month's vacation on his ranch 
     in Crawford, Texas, on Aug. 4, that mood had changed. Where 
     the President goes, the responsibilities of office follow, 
     and so, each morning, Bush sat in the ranch office and 
     received the CIA's Presidential Daily Brief. The bried--or 
     PDB, in Langley-speak--is the CIA's chance to mainline its 
     priorities into the President's thinking. Each day, the PDB 
     is winnowed to a few pages; when the President is in 
     Washington, one of two ``briefers''--agency up-and-comers who 
     flesh out the written text--gets to work at 2 a.m. to bone up 
     on background material. The brief itself is delivered at 8 
     a.m. in front of the President's national-security team. 
     (Sometimes CIA Director George Tenet delivers it himself.) 
     One briefer had moved to Texas for the vacation, and the PDB 
     was transmitted to Crawford over a secure system. At the 
     briefing on Monday, Aug. 6--a day when the Texas heat would 
     reach 100 [degrees]--Bush received a 1\1/2\-page document, 
     which, according to Rice, was an ``analytic report'' on al-
     Qaeda. Included was a mention that al-Qaeda might be tempted 
     to hijack airliners, perhaps so that they might use hostages 
     to secure the release of an al-Qaeda leader or sympathizer. 
     Rice was not present but discussed the briefing with Bush 
     immediately after it had ended, as she always does.
       They had mush to talk about. Throughout the summer, top 
     officials had become convinced, with a growing sense of 
     foreboding, that a major operation by al-Qaeda was in the 
     works. For many in the loop, it seemed likely that any attack 
     would be aimed at Americans overseas. But sources tell TIME 
     that the Aug. 6 briefing had a very different focus; it was 
     explicitly concerned with terrorism in the homeland. The Aug. 
     6 briefing had been put together, says one official, because 
     the President had told Tenet, ``Give me a sense of what al-
     Qaeda can do inside the U.S.'' At a press conference last 
     week, Rice said the brief concentrated on the history and 
     methods of al-Qaeda. Since much of the material in it was a 
     rehash of intelligence dating to 1997 and '98, it is doubtful 
     that it was much use in answering Bush's question.
       According to Rice, there was just a sentence or two on 
     hijacking--and the passage did not address the possibility 
     that a hijacked plane would ever be flown into a building. 
     That was the first of four crucial mistakes made last summer. 
     Administration officials insisted all last week that turning 
     a plane into a suicide bomb was something that nobody had 
     contemplated. But that just isn't so. In 1995, authorities in 
     the Philippines scuppered a plan--masterminded by Ramzi 
     Yousef, who had also plotted the 1993 World Trade Center 
     bombing--for mass hijackings of American planes over the 
     Pacific. Evidence developed during the investigation of 
     Yousef and his partner, Abdul Hakim Murad, uncovered a plan 
     to crash a plane into CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. And as 
     long ago as 1994, in an incident that is well known among 
     terrorism experts, French authorities foiled a plot by the 
     Algerian Armed Islamic Group to fly an airliner into the 
     Eiffel Tower. ``Since 1994,'' says a French investigator into 
     al-Qaeda cases, ``we should all have been viewing kamikaze 
     acts as a possibility for all terrorist hijackings.'' But if 
     Rice's account is accurate, nobody significant in the Bush 
     Administration did.
       There might have been more discussion of the risks of 
     hijackings in the President's briefing if its writers had 
     known about the Phoenix memo. But they hadn't seen it, nor 
     had anyone in the CIA or the White House. Yet Senator Richard 
     Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence 
     Committee, calls the memo, which is said to contain detailed 
     descriptions of named suspects, ``one of the most explosive 
     documents I've seen in eight years.'' The memo, on which the 
     Senate Intelligence Committee was briefed last November, has 
     now become the focus of a huge political row in Washington. 
     Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee--including 
     Republican Arlen Specter, who had an angry exchange over the 
     memo with FBI Director Robert Mueller on Saturday--are 
     desperate to see it, and may yet subpoena it. ``The fact that 
     the Phoenix memo died on Somebody's desk takes your breath 
     away,'' says Senator Richard Durbin, a Democratic committee 
     member from Illinois. ``They just shuffled it off.''
       Agent Williams wrote the memo on July 5, detailing his 
     suspicions about some Arabs he had been watching, who he 
     thought were Islamic radicals. Several of the men had 
     enrolled at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, 
     Ariz. Williams posited that bin Laden's followers might be 
     trying to infiltrate the civil-aviation system as pilots, 
     security guards or other personnel, and he recommended a 
     national program to track suspicious flight-school students. 
     The memo was sent to the counterterrorism division at FBI 
     headquarters in Washington and to two field offices, 
     including the counterterrorism section in New York, which has 
     had long experience in al-Qaeda investigations.
       That experience counted for nothing. In all three offices, 
     the memo was pretty much ignored, disappearing into the black 
     hole of bureaucratic hell that is the FBI. That was the 
     second key mistake. Sources tell TIME that the memo was never 
     forwarded--not even to the level of Mike Rolince, chief of 
     the international-terrorism section. ``The thing fell into 
     the laps of people who were grossly overtaxed,'' says a 
     senior FBI official. The G-men claim to have been swamped by 
     tips about coming al-Qaeda operations. But Williams was onto 
     something. The flight students he was tracking were 
     supporters of radical Islamic groups. Some of them, sources 
     say, are believed to be connected to Hamas and Hizballah, 
     terrorist organizations based in the Middle East, while at 
     least one other--who has left the U.S.--had links to al-
     Qaeda. Another pair mentioned in the memo, neither of whom 
     attended flight school, are the ones under FBI surveillance--
     which, sources say, is the reason Mueller won't make the memo 
     public.
       However fevered the analysis of the Williams memo is now, 
     it didn't get much attention when it was written. Last July, 
     FBI headquarters wasn't concentrating on an attack within the 
     U.S. ``Nobody was looking domestically,'' says a recently 
     retired FBI official. ``We didn't think they had the people 
     to mount an operation here.''
       That was the third huge mistake--and a somewhat baffling 
     conclusion to draw, given the evidence at hand. In spring of 
     2001, Ahmed Ressam, the ``millennium bomber,'' was on trial 
     in Los Angeles, charged with being part of a plot to bomb Los 
     Angeles International Airport and other locations at the end 
     of 1999. In her press conference last week, Rice conceded 
     that in 2001 the FBI ``was involved in a number of 
     investigations of potential al-Qaeda personnel operating in 
     the United States.''
       But investigators had some reasons for being preoccupied 
     with attacks and threats outside the U.S. Al-Qaeda's most 
     notorious blows against American interests had taken place in 
     Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, the sites of the 1998 embassy 
     bombings, and in Yemen, where the U.S.S. Cole was bombed in 
     October 2002. And in the first half of last year, the CSG 
     monitored information suggesting the likelihood of another 
     attack overseas. In June 2001, the State Department issued a 
     worldwide caution warning American citizens of possible 
     attacks. That month, says a recently retired senior FBI 
     official, ``we were constantly worried that something was 
     going to happen. Our best guesstimate was something in 
     Southeast Asia.'' A French investigator involved in al-Qaeda 
     cases confirms the thought. ``The prevailing logic from 
     around 1998,'' he says, ``was that al-Qaeda and bin Laden had 
     very openly designated America as its prime target--but it 
     was a target that it preferred to attack outside the U.S.''
       By July the level of noise about terrorism from 
     intelligence sources around the world was deafening. The CSG, 
     then chaired by Richard Clarke, a Clinton Administration 
     holdover who was consumed with terrorist threats to the point 
     of obsession, was meeting almost every day. A specific threat 
     was received on the life of Bush, who was due to visit Genoa, 
     Italy, for a G-8 summit that month. Roland Jacquard, a 
     leading French expert on terrorism, says that when Russian 
     and Western intelligence agencies compared notes before the 
     summit, they were stunned to find they all had information 
     indicating that a strike was in the offing. When the Genoa 
     summit passed without incident, says a French official, 
     attention turned to the possibility of attacks on U.S. bases 
     in Belgium and Turkey. Then, at the end of July, Djamel 
     Beghal, a Franco-Algerian al-Qaeda associate, was picked up 
     in Dubai on his way from Afghanistan back to Europe. Beghal 
     started talking and implicated a network of al-Qaeda 
     operatives in Europe, who, he said, were planning to blow up 
     the American embassy in Paris. (Beghal, who has since been 
     extradited to France, has said his confession was coerced.) 
     ``We shared everything we knew with the Americans,'' says a 
     French justice official.

[[Page S8060]]

       They may have shared too much. At least in France, 
     investigators now acknowledge that Al-Qaeda may have been 
     involved in a massive feint to Europe while the real attack 
     was always planned for the U.S. ``People were convinced that 
     Europe remained the theater for Islamic terrorists,'' says 
     Jacquard. ``It's anyone's guess whether that was a technique 
     to get people looking in the wrong place. But that's what 
     happened.''
       By the beginning of August, the President had made his 
     request for a briefing on domestic threats. One of them was 
     about to be uncovered. And therein lay the fourth mistake. On 
     Aug. 16, Moussaoui was arrested in Minnesota for an 
     immigration violation, just a day after the staff at the 
     flight school where he was training told the FBI of their 
     suspicions about him. The Minnesotans weren't alone; when 
     American officials checked with their French counterparts, 
     they discovered that Moussaoui had long been suspected of 
     mixing in extremist circles. (The Zelig of modern terrorism, 
     Moussaoui has been associated with al-Qaeda networks 
     everywhere from London to Malaysia.) The FBI started urgently 
     investigating Moussaoui's past; agents in Minneapolis sought 
     a national-security warrant to search his computer files but 
     were turned down by lawyers at FBI headquarters who said they 
     didn't have sufficient evidence that he belonged to a 
     terrorist group. Immediately after Moussaoui's arrest, agents 
     twice visited the Airman Flight School in Norman, Okla., 
     where he had studied before heading to Minnesota; two of the 
     Sept. 11 hijackers had visited Norman in July 2000. The 
     FBI did inform the CIA of Moussaoui's arrest, and the CIA 
     ran checks on him while asking foreign intelligence 
     services for information. But neither the FBI nor the CIA 
     ever informed the counterterrorism group in the White 
     House. ``Do you think,'' says a White House antiterrorism 
     official, ``that if Dick Clarke had known that the FBI had 
     in custody a foreigner who couldn't speak English, who was 
     trying to fly a plane in midair, he wouldn't have done 
     something?''
       Since at least two of the four failures--those involving 
     Moussaoui and the Phoenix memo--can be laid at the door of 
     the FBI, the bureau is feeling the heat. ``The FBI has a long 
     pattern of not sharing information with others,'' says a 
     former Clinton Administration official. ``Now it's not even 
     sharing the information with itself.'' Mueller, who knew 
     about the Phoenix memo shortly after Sept. 11, plainly did 
     not anticipate the criticism it would engender. Since it 
     became public, officials have defensively pointed out that if 
     the bureau had tried to track down all Muslim flight-school 
     attendees, it would have been accused of racial profiling. 
     White House officials defend Mueller; he is ``tenacious about 
     changing things,'' says one, who admits, ``You can't change a 
     culture that's 60 years in the making overnight.'' But on 
     Capitol Hill the bureau is running out of friends. ``I have 
     no doubt that the FBI needs reform,'' said Senate Republican 
     leader Trent Lott last week.
       Yet when the blame gets assigned, as it will now that a 
     joint congressional investigation into Sept. 11 is getting 
     down to work, the FBI won't monopolize it. The ugly truth is 
     that nine months after huge weaknesses in the national 
     security system were revealed, they remain unaddressed. In 
     Washington, says a senior Clinton Administration official, 
     ``information just moves through stovepipes,'' never getting 
     pooled by different agencies until it is too late. The 
     intelligence services were built to fight the cold war, not 
     an enemy that flits from Afghan caves to apartments in 
     London. The division between domestic and international 
     security made sense when the former was concerned with what 
     criminals did and the latter with foreign countries. But some 
     criminals are now as powerful as countries, and some 
     countries are run by criminals.
       Nine months ago, the appointment of Tom Ridge as Homeland 
     Security czar was billed as the shake-up Washington needed. 
     So far, he has been more of a mild foot stamp than an 
     earthquake. Instead of real reform, the Administration has 
     resorted to its usual mode: attempting to control warring 
     satrapies from the White House. The remarkable aspect of last 
     week's events in Washington was the unintended revelation 
     that Rice is the true manager of counterterrorism policy. In 
     the past, the National Security Council got into trouble when 
     it adopted an operational role rather than one of analysis 
     (think Oliver North), and for Bush this identification of one 
     of his closest advisers with the operational failures of 
     counterterrorism policy could yet be politically troubling.
       Among his supporters, however, the President still rides 
     high. Bush's simple, passionate argument--that he would never 
     have sat idly if he had known what was coming on Sept. 11--
     helped stiffen spines. Republicans pointed out that members 
     of congressional intelligence committees get the same 
     information the President receives in his PDB and yet had not 
     made a fuss about the Aug. 6 briefing. That claim was 
     disputed; Tom Daschle, the Democrat's leader in the Senate, 
     insisted the Senate and the Administration did not have 
     ``identical information'' about al-Qaeda threats.
       In a sense, the spat over who got what version of which 
     memo epitomizes Washington at its worst. The capital at its 
     best would appreciate that the most important question isn't 
     what Bush (or anyone else) knew before Sept. 11; it is what 
     the Administration and Congress have and have not done to fix 
     a broken system. But November and the midterm elections, you 
     may have noticed, are only six months away. Washington is 
     reverting to form.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Time magazine got into it very thoroughly--much more so 
than the committee that has been leaking. I was disappointed Sunday 
when I heard my distinguished colleague from Tennessee say: No, he 
would not take a polygraph test.
  I am an old trial lawyer. You are not going to convict my client on a 
polygraph test. We used it in the Hoover Commission 50 years ago, and 
it is an indicator. I wanted to make sure the staff on the Intelligence 
Committee--as I found out, I had been doubledealed by the CIA and was 
told: I cannot give you that information, Senator, because your staff 
does not have the appropriate clearance.
  Before you serve here as a Capitol policeman, you have to take a 
polygraph, and also before you serve in the FBI, CIA, and Secret 
Service--go down the list--but not the staff of the Senate Intelligence 
Committee.
  So I learned that in a war you never ask your man to do something you 
do not do yourself first. So I went over to take a polygraph test. To 
the very first question, I started off my answer ``in my humble 
opinion'' and the needle went right off the chart. I flunked. It took 2 
hours and they gave me a chance again, and after that 2-hour test, I 
passed it and came back and I still brought it up that as a member of 
the Intelligence Committee, they do not have the appropriate clearance. 
If they want to know where the leaks are, go to the committees.
  Mr. President, the National Security Agency failed. They had all 
kinds of warnings about al-Qaida. They had Arabic friends over there. 
They got the word on September 10 in Arabic that ``the match is about 
to begin,'' but they didn't translate the Arabic into English until 
September 12.
  Now comes the National Security Council. It is interesting that in 
1947 we had the same problem of coordination--instituting not only the 
CIA, but the 1947 National Security Council that the function of the 
Council shall be to advise the President with respect to the 
integration--that is joining--of domestic, foreign, and military 
policies relating to the national security, so as to enable the 
military services and the other Departments and Agencies of Government 
to cooperate more effectively in matters involving national security.
  If you don't have a President right at the catbird seat pointing to 
them and saying you either talk and coordinate with each other or else 
you are out, it is not going to be done. You can pass all the bills you 
want in the U.S. Congress. You are just passing another entity for 
finger-pointing. They need correlation again and again.
  Here is exactly what the President said in the National Security 
Presidential directive he made. I had a copy of it here. It is with 
respect to ordering the bush National Security Council. Incidentally, 
what I am saying I had said to him at the Cabinet table over 2 months 
ago. But on February 13--I ask unanimous consent that this National 
Security Presidential directive of February 13, 2001, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  National Security Presidential Directives--NSPDs, the White House, 
                     Washington, February 13, 2001


                             Memorandum for

     The Vice President
     The Secretary of State
     The Secretary of the Treasury
     The Secretary of Defense
     The Attorney General
     The Secretary of Agriculture
     The Secretary of Commerce
     The Secretary of Health and Human Services
     The Secretary of Transportation
     The Secretary of Energy
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget
     United States Trade Representative
     Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers
     Director, National Drug Control Policy
     Chief of Staff to the President
     Director of Central Intelligence
     Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency
     Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
     Assistant to the President for Economic Policy
     Counsel to the President
     Chief of Staff and Assistant to the Vice President for 
         National Security Affairs

[[Page S8061]]

     Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy
     Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
     Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality
     Chairman, Export-Import Bank
     Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
     Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard
     Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
     Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
     Director, Peace Corps
     Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
     Director, Defense Intelligence Agency
     President, Overseas Private Investment Corporation
     Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
     Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service
     Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration
     President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
     Archivist of the United States
     Director, Information Security Oversight Office
     Subject: Organization of the National Security Council System
       This document is the first in a series of National Security 
     Presidential Directives. National Security Presidential 
     Directives shall replace both Presidential Decision 
     Directives and Presidential Review Directives as an 
     instrument for communicating presidential decisions about the 
     national security policies of the United States.
       National security includes the defense of the United States 
     of America, protection of our constitutional system of 
     government, and the advancement of United States interest 
     around the globe. National security also depends on America's 
     opportunity to prosper in the world economy. The National 
     Security Act of 1947, as amended, established the National 
     Security Council to advise the President with respect to the 
     integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies 
     relating to national security. That remains its purpose. The 
     NSC shall advise and assist me in integrating all aspects of 
     national security policy as it affects the United States--
     domestic, foreign, military, intelligence, and economics (in 
     conjunction with the National Economic Council (NEC)). The 
     National Security Council system is a process to coordinate 
     executive departments and agencies in the effective 
     development and implementation of those national security 
     policies.
       The National Security Council (NSC) shall have as its 
     regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) the 
     President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the 
     Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The 
     Director of Central Intelligence and the Chairman of the 
     Joint Chiefs of Staff, as statutory advisors to the NSC, 
     shall also attend NSC meetings. The Chief of Staff to the 
     President and the Assistant to the President for Economic 
     Policy are invited to attend any NSC meeting. The Counsel to 
     the President shall be consulted regarding the agenda of NSC 
     meetings, and shall attend any meetings when, in consultation 
     with the Assistant to the President for National Security 
     Affairs, he deems it appropriate. The Attorney General and 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall be 
     invited to attend meetings pertaining to their 
     responsibilities. For the Attorney General, this includes 
     both those matters within the Justice Department's 
     jurisdiction and those matters implicating the Attorney 
     General's responsibility under 28 U.S.C. 511 to give his 
     advice and opinion on questions of law when required by the 
     President. The heads of other executive departments and 
     agencies, as well as other senior officials, shall be invited 
     to attend meetings of the NSC when appropriate.
       The NSC shall meet at my direction. When I am absent from a 
     meeting of the NSC, at my direction the Vice President may 
     preside. The Assistant to the President for National Security 
     Affairs shall be responsible, at my direction and in 
     consultation with the other regular attendees of the NSC, for 
     determining the agenda, ensuring that necessary papers are 
     prepared, and recording NSC actions and Presidential 
     decisions. When international economic issues are on the 
     agenda of the NSC, the Assistant to the President for Nation 
     Security Affairs and the Assistant to the President for 
     Economic Policy shall perform these tasks in concert.
       The NSC Principals Committee (NSC/PC) will continue to be 
     the senior interagency forum for consideration of policy 
     issues affecting national security, as it has since 1989. The 
     NSC/PC shall have as its regular attendees the Secretary of 
     State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of 
     Defense, the Chief of Staff to the President, and the 
     Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (who 
     shall serve as chair). The Director of Central Intelligence 
     and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend 
     where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and 
     expertise are to be discussed. The Attorney General and 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     be invited to attend meetings pertaining to their 
     responsibilities. For the Attorney General, this includes 
     both those matters within the Justice Department's 
     jurisdiction and those matters implicating the Attorney 
     General's responsibility under 28 U.S.C. 511 to give his 
     advice and opinion on questions of law when required by 
     the President. The Counsel to the President shall be 
     consulted regarding the agenda of NSC/PC meetings, and 
     shall attend any meeting when, in consultation with the 
     Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, 
     he deems it appropriate. When international economic 
     issues are on the agenda of the NSC/PC, the Committee's 
     regular attendees will include the Secretary of Commerce, 
     the United States Trade Representative, the Assistant to 
     the President for Economic Policy (who shall serve as 
     chair for agenda items that principally pertain to 
     international economics), and, when the issues pertain to 
     her responsibilities, the Secretary of Agriculture. The 
     Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser to the Vice 
     President shall attend all meetings of the NSC/PC, as 
     shall the Assistant to the President and Deputy National 
     Security Advisor (who shall serve as Executive Secretary 
     of the NSC/PC). Other heads of departments and agencies, 
     along with additional senior officials, shall be invited 
     where appropriate.
       The NSC/PC shall meet at the call of the Assistant to the 
     President for National Security Affairs in consultation with 
     the regular attendees of the NSC/PC. The Assistant to the 
     President for National Security Affairs shall determine the 
     agenda in consultation with the foregoing, and ensure that 
     necessary papers are prepared. When international economic 
     issues are on the agenda of the NSC/PC, the Assistant to the 
     President for National Security Affairs and the Assistant to 
     the President for Economic Policy shall perform these tasks 
     in concert.
       The NSC Deputies Committee (NSC/DC) will also continue to 
     serve as the senior sub-Cabinet interagency forum for 
     consideration of policy issues affecting national security. 
     The NSC/DC can prescribe and review the work of the NSC 
     interagency groups discussed later in this directive. The 
     NSC/DC shall also help ensure that issues being brought 
     before the NSC/PC or the NSC have been properly analyzed and 
     prepared for decision. The NSC/DC shall have as its regular 
     members the Deputy Secretary of State or Under Secretary of 
     the Treasury or Under Secretary of the Treasury for 
     International Affairs, the Deputy Secretary of Defense or 
     Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the Deputy Attorney 
     General, the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, the Vice 
     Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Deputy Chief of 
     Staff to the President for Policy, the Chief of Staff and 
     National Security Adviser to the Vice President, the Deputy 
     Assistant to the President for International Economic 
     Affairs, and the Assistant to the President and Deputy 
     National Security Advisor (who shall serve as chair). When 
     international economic issues are on the agenda, the NSC/DC's 
     regular membership will include the Deputy Secretary of 
     Commerce, A Deputy United States Trade Representative, and, 
     when the issues pertain to his responsibilities, the Deputy 
     Secretary of Agriculture, and the NSC/DC shall be chaired by 
     the Deputy Assistant to the President for International 
     Economic Affairs for agenda items that principally pertain to 
     international economics. Other senior officials shall be 
     invited where appropriate.
       The NSC/DC shall meet at the call of its chair, in 
     consultation with the other regular members of the NSC/DC. 
     Any regular member of the NSC/DC may also request a meeting 
     of the Committee for prompt crisis management. For all 
     meetings the chair shall determine the agenda in consultation 
     with the foregoing, and ensure that necessary papers are 
     prepared.
       The Vice President and I may attend any and all meetings of 
     any entity established by or under this directive.
       Management of the development and implementation of 
     national security policies by multiple agencies of the United 
     States Government shall usually be accomplished by the NSC 
     Policy Coordination Committees (NSC/PCCs). The NSC/PCCs shall 
     be the main day-to-day fora for interagency coordination of 
     national security policy. They shall provide policy analysis 
     for consideration by the more senior committees of the NSC 
     system and ensure timely responses to decisions made by the 
     President. Each NSC/PCC shall include representatives from 
     the executive departments, offices, and agencies represented 
     in the NSC/DC.
       Six NSC/PCCs are hereby established for the following 
     regions: Europe and Eurasia, Western Hemisphere, East Asia, 
     South Asia, Near East and North Africa, and Africa. Each of 
     the NSC/PCCs shall be chaired by an official of Under 
     Secretary or Assistant Secretary rank to be designated by the 
     Secretary of State.
       Eleven NSC/PCCs are hereby also established for the 
     following functional topics, each to be chaired by a person 
     of Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary rank designated by 
     the indicated authority:
       Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations (by 
     the Assistant to the President for National Security 
     Affairs);
       International Development and Humanitarian Assistance (by 
     the Secretary of State);
       Global Environment (by the Assistant to the President for 
     National Security Affairs and the Assistant to the President 
     for Economic Policy in concert);
       International Finance (by the Secretary of the Treasury);
       Transnational Economic Issues (by the Assistant to the 
     President for Economic Policy);
       Counter-Terrorism and National Preparedness (by the 
     Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs);

[[Page S8062]]

       Defense Strategy, Force Structure, and Planning (by the 
     Secretary of Defense);
       Arms Control (by the Assistant to the President for 
     National Security Affairs);
       Proliferation, Counterproliferation, and Homeland Defense 
     (by the Assistant to the President for National Security 
     Affairs);
       Intelligence and Counterintelligence (by the Assistant to 
     the President for National Security Affairs); and
       Records Access and Information Security (by the Assistant 
     to the President for National Security Affairs).
       The Trade Policy Review Group (TPRG) will continue to 
     function as an interagency coordinator of trade policy. 
     Issues considered within the TPRG, as with the PCCs, will 
     flow through the NSC and/or NEC process as appropriate.
       Each NSC/PCC shall also have an Executive Secretary from 
     the staff of the NSC, to be designated by the Assistant to 
     the President for National Security Affairs. The Executive 
     Secretary shall assist the Chairman in scheduling the 
     meetings of the NSC/PCC, determining the agenda, recording 
     the actions taken and tasks assigned, and ensuring timely 
     responses to the central policymaking committees of the NSC 
     system. The Chairman of each NSC/PCC, in consultation with 
     the Executive Secretary, may invite representatives of other 
     executive departments and agencies to attend meetings of the 
     NSC/PCC where appropriate.
       The Assistant to the President for National Security 
     Affairs, at my direction and in consultation with the Vice 
     President and the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and 
     Defense, may establish additional NSC/PCCs as appropriate.
       The Chairman of each NSC/PCC, with the agreements of the 
     Executive Secretary, may establish subordinate working groups 
     to assist the PCC in the performance of its duties.
       The existing system of Interagency Working Groups is 
     abolished.
       The oversight of ongoing operations assigned in PDD/NSC-56 
     to Executive Committees of the Deputies Committee will be 
     performed by the appropriate regional NSC/PCCs, which may 
     create subordinate working groups to provide coordination for 
     ongoing operations.
       The Counter-Terrorism Security Group, Critical 
     Infrastructure Coordination Group, Weapons of Mass 
     Destruction Preparedness, Consequences Management and 
     Protection Group, and the interagency working group on 
     Enduring Constitutional Government are reconstituted as 
     various forms of NSC/PCC on Counter-Terrorism and National 
     Preparedness.
       The duties assigned in PDD/NSC-75 to the National 
     Counterintelligence Policy Group will be performed in the 
     NSC/PCC on Intelligence and Counterintelligence, meeting with 
     appropriate attendees.
       The duties assigned to the Security Policy Board and other 
     entities established in PDD/NSC-29 will be transferred to 
     various NSC/PCCs, depending on the particular security 
     problem being addressed.
       The duties assigned in PDD/NSC-41 to the Standing Committee 
     on Nonproliferation will be transferred to the PCC on 
     Proliferation, Counterproliferation, and Homeland Defense.
       The duties assigned in PDD/NSC-36 to the Interagency 
     Working Group for Intelligence Priorities will be transferred 
     to the PCC on Intelligence and Counterintelligence.
       The duties of the Human Rights Treaties Interagency Working 
     Group established in E.O. 13107 are transferred to the PCC on 
     Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations.
       The Nazi War Criminal Records Interagency Working Group 
     established in E.O. 13110 shall be reconstituted, under the 
     terms of that order and until its work ends in January 
     2002, as a Working Group of the NSC/PCC for Records Access 
     and Information Security.
       Except for those established by statute, other existing NSC 
     interagency groups, ad hoc bodies, and executive committees 
     are also abolished as of March 1, 2001, unless they are 
     specifically reestablished as subordinate working groups 
     within the new NSC system as of that date. Cabinet officers, 
     the heads of other executive agencies, and the directors of 
     offices within the Executive Office of the President shall 
     advise the Assistant to the President for National Security 
     Affairs of those specific NSC interagency groups chaired by 
     their respective departments or agencies that are either 
     mandated by statute or are otherwise of sufficient importance 
     and vitality as to warrant being reestablished. In each case 
     the Cabinet officer, agency head, or office director should 
     describe the scope of the activities proposed for or now 
     carried out by the interagency group, the relevant statutory 
     mandate if any, and the particular NSC/PCC that should 
     coordinate this work. The Trade Promotion Coordinating 
     Committee established in E.O. 12870 shall continue its work, 
     however, in the manner specified in that order. As to those 
     committees expressly established in the National Security 
     Act, the NSC/PC and/or NSC/DC shall serve as those committees 
     and perform the functions assigned to those committees by the 
     Act.
       To further clarify responsibilities and effective 
     accountability within the NSC system, those positions 
     relating to foreign policy that are designated as special 
     presidential emissaries, special envoys for the President, 
     senior advisors to the President and the Secretary of State, 
     and special advisors to the President and the Secretary of 
     State are also abolished as of March 1, 2001, unless they are 
     specifically redesignated or reestablished by the Secretary 
     of State as positions in that Department.
       This Directive shall supersede all other existing 
     presidential guidance on the organization of the National 
     Security Council system. With regard to application of this 
     document to economic matters, this document shall be 
     interpreted in concert with any Executive Order governing the 
     National Economic Council and with presidential decision 
     documents signed hereafter that implement either this 
     directive or that Executive Order.

     [signed: George W. Bush]
  Mr. HOLLINGS. You will find in there that 11 functional coordinating 
committees within the council itself, chaired by the National Security 
Council. Among them are committees on counterterrorism and national 
preparedness, chaired by Condoleezza Rice, to Advisor to the President 
for National Security Affairs. You have another committee on 
counterproliferation and homeland defense, which the President of the 
United States thought was necessary in February of last year, chaired 
by Condoleezza Rice. There is another one on intelligence and 
counterintelligence, again chaired by Condoleezza Rice.
  Later we see President's National Security Advisor on the TV saying: 
We did not get anything specific. In fairness to her, she is an expert 
in foreign policy. She used to instruct a course, I understand, at 
Stanford. She has never served in law enforcement or counterterrorism. 
But it is time to get real. This bill does not directly deal with the 
entities that failed. It is about running around, like my Navy friend 
used to say, ``when in danger, when in doubt, run in circles scream and 
shout.''
  The administration propose this big bureaucracy. I have 110,000 of 
them already at DOT. I have been working on transportation security of 
the airlines, the rails, and the seaports. How are you going to get a 
department full of midlevel personnel in charge if you cannot get the 
Executive level, the Presidential level, engaged in active management. 
I told the President of the United States: Mr. President, I want you to 
get hourly reports on the homeland security intelligence as you receive 
those hourly political reports from Carl Rove. He knows what is going 
on politically in this country. I want him to know what is going on 
intelligence-wise with respect to homeland security, but we do not have 
that.
  What we have is another finger-pointing agency. As Harry Truman said: 
The buck stops here. He is the one who brought in the 1947 initiative 
to reorganize for national security. He did not mind assuming that 
responsibility.
  Mr. President, do you think if you were President that you would 
depend on the Department of Homeland Security for your intelligence 
analysis? No, no, that is not going to ever happen. One, that 
Department is only going to be fed what the President says to feed 
them. The FBI is not going to tell them everything. The CIA is not 
going to tell them everything. It is a culture. We have to break down 
that culture, but the only place we know they are not afraid to tell is 
the National Security Council of the President of the United States.

  The Secretary of the Homeland Defense Department would not even know 
what to ask for. They do not have any kind of intelligence collection. 
They do not have the authority or resources to do that. They would 
create another analysis department, but it will not function properly 
unless it is fused. There has to be a fusion, an integration, as they 
said in 1947, of domestic and foreign intelligence so they know where 
to act. We have read in the newspapers where they are getting their 
money for terrorism, outfitting Canada and so on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  My time is limited, so I will close with the idea that, we can pass 
this bill ipso facto, word for word--either bill--this afternoon, and 4 
or 5 years from now after they have had a chance to organize, we can 
have another 9-11. We are not going to prevent it with this particular 
measure.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 5 additional minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is all right, Mr. President. I will yield the time 
back and come back in on the debate. This is

[[Page S8063]]

only a motion to proceed. I work with them. I can tell you the 
resistance of the FBI talking to the CIA--that is not in this bill--but 
we have to have a President get them together and make sure information 
is fused. There is a resistance. We have had meetings on port security. 
I cannot get the FBI to attend those meetings. I am going to get on Bob 
Mueller about that because I have his appropriation, but they do not 
want to get together. They are looking for crime. They are not looking 
for prevention. They want to catch somebody. When crimes are committed 
they are called into action. While we hope crimes are never committed, 
the FBI serves the nation by responding when crimes are committed. We 
must work to prevent terrorist attacks. That is the new culture, the 
new role to be taken on.
  The President has to play the game of President, be the chief 
executive. Mr. President, I say to Senator Byrd, in his mind, does he 
think he would depend on the Department of Domestic Security for making 
a decision? He is not going to depend on that Department or any other, 
except for the National Security Council.
  There is no substitute for the CIA being on the Council or for the 
FBI being on the Council, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of 
Homeland Security. Put him on the National Security Council. Let's 
begin to emphasize the domestic side of foreign policy and 
international threats.
  That is what has to be done, and it has to be done at the White 
House. You cannot run all over the country fundraising; you have to go 
to work. That is one fault with this particular President. I cannot put 
him to work. I see him out with flags, military people, policemen, 
firemen, and others. Carl Rove has him. I would like to get hold of 
him, and we could get this Government going. He has to go to work and 
bring them in and say: I want to make sure I know what I am doing. And 
this Department does not help him know what he is doing.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from New York 
wish?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Ten minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New 
York, Mrs. Clinton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I rise to join 
Senator Byrd in speaking about our homeland security needs. Our 
colleague from South Carolina always teaches me something whenever I 
have the pleasure and privilege of hearing him speak in this Chamber.
  New Yorkers particularly owe Senator Byrd a great debt of gratitude 
because he and his very worthy staff have done a tremendous amount of 
work to help New York recover and rebuild from the tragedy of September 
11.
  As we appear today in this Chamber, I cannot help but remark that 
Senator Byrd has been focused on homeland security from the moment I 
first spoke with him on September 12 around 7 a.m. after we knew the 
full extent of the damage, and I was going up to see what had happened 
in New York for myself. He has been extremely understanding and also 
very knowledgeable about what it was going to take to make us more 
secure.
  I also thank Senator Lieberman for his tremendous efforts in trying 
to craft legislation that will make us safer. We are not just doing 
this for a political exercise or just to reorganize for the sake of 
reorganizing, but we know there are serious issues to be addressed, 
some of which Senator Hollings spoke about.
  I do support the idea of a Homeland Security Department, but I come 
today to recognize the seriousness of the issues that should be 
addressed while we are trying to determine what it is we need to do to 
make our Government more prepared.
  There are a number of issues, and my colleagues have raised quite a 
few of them, but I want to focus on one particular aspect of our 
homeland security, and that is the resources that our frontline 
firefighters, police officers, and emergency responders need to be the 
soldiers to defend our homeland security. Just as we support our men 
and women in uniform who are doing a very important job extremely well, 
from Afghanistan to the Middle East to the Far East, we have to do the 
same for our local homeland defenders.
  I have been disappointed in the disconnect between rhetoric and 
resources from the administration. We certainly have had many heartfelt 
and moving moments where words have captured our feelings.
  When it comes to providing the resources that our police, our 
firefighters, and our emergency responders need, I think the 
administration has fallen short. That was certainly clear over the 
August recess when the President chose not to sign the emergency 
designation for the $5.1 billion supplemental appropriations bill, 
which included $2.5 billion for improving our homeland security.
  That number did not come out of thin air. It was the result of 
hearings, testimony, and evidence presented by people on the front 
lines. A number of people from New York who were in our police 
department and our fire department, who had been there on September 11, 
who understood what we needed to be well prepared, came down to set 
forth a very clear agenda that they hoped the Federal Government would 
help them meet.
  The supplemental appropriations bill, for example, would have given 
our first responders $100 million so that police and firefighters would 
have communications systems that could talk to each other. We found 
out, tragically, on September 11 that we did not have that, and New 
York is not alone in not having what is called interoperability between 
the police and firefighter radio systems.
  There would have been $150 million in additional FIRE Act grant 
funding to help fire departments improve their emergency preparedness, 
and there would have been $90 million to track the long-term health 
care of those who responded at Ground Zero, not just so we fulfill our 
obligation to take care of these brave men and women but also so we can 
be better prepared to take care of all of our first responders.
  I am not alone in thinking the President's refusal to sign the 
emergency designation was a terrible mistake. The International 
Association of Firefighters has voiced its concern in very clear, 
unmistakable language. I know they are particularly passionate about 
this issue because they lost so many of their colleagues.
  In his August 20 letter to President Bush, the International 
Association of Firefighters general president, Harold Schaitberger, had 
this to say:

       I would be dishonest if I did not convey our anger, concern 
     and growing doubt about your commitment to us . . . No one, 
     not even the President, has the right to pontificate about 
     his or her commitment and respect for firefighters while 
     ignoring our legitimate needs.
       With all due respect, support entails more than kind words.

  The President said he was exercising fiscal discipline by not making 
the emergency designation and said that this was, in his view, wasteful 
congressional spending; that $5 billion was not an emergency even if it 
went to the kind of emergency needs and services that we know we are 
lacking.
  I have to respectfully disagree. I think we do face an emergency. We 
are rushing through this legislation because clearly we think we face 
an emergency. But the real emergency is not in Washington to reorganize 
a huge Government department. The real emergency is in the police 
stations and the firehouses and the emergency rooms of America. That is 
why I am concerned that when the Congress goes through the kind of 
process it did to arrive at a need for $5.1 billion and it is totally 
disregarded, then why on Earth would we want to give up congressional 
oversight and authority in setting the agenda to protect our country?
  I believe it is imperative we do everything we can in setting up this 
Department to get the money to where it needs to go. We have to get the 
dollars where the responsibility rests.
  When a disaster occurs, whether it is man-made or accidental, we do 
not call the White House. We do not even call the Senate or the 
Congress or the Governor's office. In most instances, we call 911.
  It is clear the kind of support we need for direct Federal homeland 
security funding needs to be a part of any homeland security defense 
program.
  We have a heavy responsibility in Washington, not just to talk the 
talk

[[Page S8064]]

but to walk the walk with our first responders. We have to give them 
the equipment and the resources and the training they need. According 
to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, since September 11 cities have 
invested almost $3 billion in added security costs for equipment, 
overtime, and training. As of this date, with the exceptions of New 
York and Washington, DC, which suffered so grievously on September 11, 
not one city has received a single dime to cover these additional 
costs.
  Some bioterrorism funding--about $1.1 billion--has been dispersed to 
the States, and that helps, but that does not answer the need that our 
firefighters, police officers, and emergency responders have.
  I think it is clear, if we are going to be debating this Department, 
let us talk about the real needs that are out there. We have to be sure 
we follow the clear example that has been set by communities in trying 
to shift funds to meet their emergency needs. We have to help them 
shoulder these additional burdens. Clearly, the Federal, State, and 
local governments are at partnership in preparing, in being 
responsible, and then finally in responding. But if they do not have 
the resources, they cannot do the job.
  So as we debate this Department, let us join with the people on our 
front lines who understand what they really need--groups such as the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the 
National Association of Counties. Let us support direct Federal funding 
to local communities. Let us do it in the form of a community 
development block grant. Let us follow the money where it needs to go.
  From my perspective, it is imperative we debate resources, not just 
reorganization. It would be a cruel deception to pass something called 
Homeland Security Department reorganization, which we all know is going 
to take years to untangle to try to get focused and to be effective, 
and not provide the dollars that our frontline defenders need.
  I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. This is compounded because the administration's budget 
calls for eliminating money that would go to our police, firefighters, 
and local law enforcement; eliminating more than $500 million from the 
COPS program; eliminating entirely Federal funding for hiring new so-
called COPS officers; eliminating and cutting other essential programs 
such as the local law enforcement block grant. This makes no sense to 
me.
  It is fine to have this abstract, theoretical, philosophical, even 
constitutional debate, as important as it is--and I believe with all my 
heart it is a critical debate--but let us not kid ourselves: If we do 
not get resources where it counts, we are not going to be better 
prepared, we are not going to be better defended. I hope as we debate 
homeland defense, we also recognize the obligation we owe to those men 
and women who would answer the call today when it is sent out.

  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank Mrs. Clinton, the distinguished 
Senator from New York, for her very appropriate, meaningful, and 
forceful remarks in connection with this matter and in connection with 
other matters she has addressed. And I thank Senator Hollings, the 
chairman of the committee which has jurisdiction over transportation, 
the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee which has jurisdiction 
over the State, Justice, and Commerce Departments and other agencies; 
and thanks to Senator Reed for his excellent presentation.
  This time is going on my time, which is all right. I am prepared to 
yield to the distinguished senior Senator from Washington, who sits on 
the Appropriations Committee and who presides over the Transportation 
Subcommittee of that committee with a high degree of dignity and poise, 
and someone who always brings to the committee's attention and to the 
Senate's attention the length and breadth of her great knowledge that 
she acquires through the holding of hearings, through the study she 
gives to the budget requests that come before the committee. I yield 15 
minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia 
for his leadership on this issue and for yielding me the time today.
  On June 6, President Bush addressed the American public, informing 
the public he had changed his mind. After months of rejecting just such 
a proposal, he now saw the benefit of organizing a new Department of 
Homeland Security. His aides had handed him a plan. To his eyes, it was 
a good plan and one that should be implemented.
  However, something else happened that week as well that happens all 
too frequently in America. The Coast Guard, one of the agencies that 
would be merged into the President's new Department of Homeland 
Security, was performing search and rescue operations across the 
Nation.
  In my home State of Washington, the Coast Guard was dispatching 
helicopters and motorboats throughout Willapa Bay to search for three 
missing Fort Lewis soldiers. On the evening of June 1, their 20-foot 
pleasure craft washed ashore in Bay Center, WA. Unfortunately, those 
soldier's bodies were recovered the next morning.
  As I look today at the President's request, I am very mindful of the 
impact it could have on the Coast Guard's ability to carry out other 
missions like search and rescue.
  We need to be responsive to the President's request. We need to give 
this and future administrations the tools they need to better secure 
America. However, we cannot sacrifice the critical safety work of the 
Coast Guard for the incomplete plan the President's aides drew up in 
the basement of the White House.
  I rise today because I am deeply concerned that in our rush to do 
something about homeland security, we may well overlook the 
consequences it will have on the safety and security of all Americans. 
Frankly, given what I have seen so far, I have very real reasons for 
concern. Of course, I believe, like all my colleagues, that we need to 
do everything we can to make sure our Government and our military can 
meet the challenges since September 11. We have to focus considerable 
energy and resources on addressing those challenges.
  Those who want to harm us will look for new ways to exploit our 
weaknesses. We have to do better. The world has changed. We must adapt. 
But we must balance the needs of our country.
  In my role as chairman of the Appropriations Transportation 
Subcommittee, I have worked very hard to provide the resources to meet 
our needs at our borders, at our seaports, airports, and throughout our 
Nation's transportation infrastructure. Often, that has meant pushing 
this administration to support the necessary funding, sometimes without 
success.
  We are moving forward, and we are making America more secure. The 
Senate has followed a deliberate process, and the leadership of Senator 
Byrd has been critical to this endeavor. He has made sure that we move 
forward responsibly to meet the new challenges facing our Nation. But 
let's face it, it takes a while to get even the simple things right. I 
have been working with the Transportation Security Administration for 
months on airline security, and even the smallest things have taken a 
while to work out.
  Look at what we face at our northern border. It took many months and 
we had to put a lot of pressure on this administration just to get the 
National Guard deployed at the northern border to fill the gaping holes 
in our border security left by years of negligence. It then took many 
more weeks to get our guardsmen armed, secure. Securing our border is 
essential, but so is ensuring the efficient flow of people, goods, and 
services across our border with our friends in Canada. Canada is our 
Nation's largest trading partner. Many millions of people in both 
countries depend on that trade for their livelihoods. If we do the 
wrong thing, the loss of jobs in our border communities will be 
devastating.

  How will the Department of Homeland Security, envisioned by the 
President, balance the complexity of those competing needs of the 
American people? We do not know. We are supposed to trust this 
administration.

[[Page S8065]]

  Now the administration wants to rush through a homeland security bill 
which was drawn up by a handful of White House aides. It is the largest 
Government reorganization since 1947. Look at what has happened in the 
House since the President submitted his proposal. The standing 
committees looked at the proposal and saw major problems. The House 
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee unanimously voted to 
keep the Coast Guard out of that new Department. Based on their 
expertise and their research, the standing committee saw the clear need 
to maintain the Coast Guard outside of the new Department.
  What happened? The select committee ignored that recommendation and 
put a rubber stamp on the President's original proposal. In fact, 
several times the standing committees made constructive improvements to 
bills, only to see their recommendations rejected by the select 
committee.
  The administration wants to rush this proposal through Congress. 
Anyone who raises a legitimate question is immediately derided as 
``trying to reserve turf.''
  This is not about turf. It is about safety. It is about a young Coast 
Guardsmen who climbed aboard foreign vessels in the open seas, not 
knowing what they may find. It is about TSA security agents who are 
trying to make sure that passengers attempting to board our planes do 
not pose a security threat. I am proud to work to try to provide them 
with some job security just as they work hard to protect our Nation's 
security.
  These are real questions that need to be answered. This afternoon, I 
raise some of those questions because there is a lot at stake for the 
people I represent and for every American. I want to make sure we do 
this right. So far, I have not gotten the answers I need.
  I have two major concerns. First, we have not yet figured out how to 
fulfill our traditional missions and the new security missions at the 
same time. If we combined all these various agencies into one massive 
Department with a primary mission of homeland security, how are we 
going to meet the traditional needs across the board?
  Let's look at the Coast Guard, just one agency. Since September 11, 
the Coast Guard has shifted resources away from traditional missions to 
homeland events. That is an appropriate response, but it comes at a 
cost. Unfortunately, it means the Coast Guard is spending less time 
interdicting drugs and illegal migrants, enforcing fishery and marine 
safety laws, and protecting our marine environment.
  But the traditional missions have not disappeared. We still need the 
Coast Guard to keep drugs and the illegal migrants off our shores. We 
need them to protect our environment. And we need them to protect the 
lives of our fishermen and the integrity of our fishing grounds. 
Frankly, even without the new security needs, we have a long way to go 
to meet even those basic missions.
  I am concerned we are rushing into a new organization that could 
compromise our ability to meet all the challenges we are facing. What 
will be the commitment from the Department of Homeland Security to 
protecting our marine environment or enforcing our fisheries laws or 
conducting search and rescue operations? If the administration 
continues to play budget games and underfund the Department, as it has 
done so far with the TSA, will the scarce dollars go only to security 
and not to traditional missions?
  Right now, we cannot even get the basic facts. I would like to know 
how much of the current Coast Guard budget is going toward homeland 
security. On July 9, the Coast Guard Commandant said 40 percent of the 
Coast Guard's operating budget goes to the missions of the new 
Department. A few weeks later, on July 30, the Commandant said almost 
50 percent of the Coast Guard's budget went to homeland security. That 
is a difference of at least $350 million. That number matters because 
the boats and resources used for homeland defense are often the very 
same ones needed for search and rescue and other missions.
  I am not raising this to criticize Admiral Collins. He is doing an 
excellent job. I work closely with him. But it shows how difficult it 
is to get even the most basic questions answered as we look at this new 
Department. The answers matter because the vast majority of Americans 
live in coastal States or along the Great Lakes or inland waterways, 
and every American is impacted when the Coast Guard slows down its work 
stopping illegal drugs. To include the Coast Guard in the new 
Department will impact the lives of millions of people. I think we need 
to explore these questions closely. Simply put, we have not done a good 
job meeting our traditional missions and security missions at the same 
time. I would like to know how one massive Department, focused 
primarily on security, will help us meet the needs out there.

  Second, I am very concerned about accountability and authority over 
everything from the staff of the new Department to its budget. The 
administration has asked for unprecedented power and control over this 
proposed Department. Some of the demands for power over workers really 
trouble me. The President wants changes in the personnel rules so he 
can have flexibility. Is the President suggesting that today's 
unionized border agents are not doing an adequate job or that today's 
unionized Customs officials are not responding to new mission 
requirements in a timely manner? If that is what he is suggesting, then 
he is wrong.
  I have been on the border. I have met with the Border Patrol and 
Customs agents. These professionals are our sons and daughters, they 
are our neighbors, they are our friends, they are our husbands, and 
they are our wives. They serve the American people selflessly, often 
jeopardizing their own health and safety. I do not think those who 
serve in the Department of Homeland Security should be second-class 
citizens, given a lower level of rights and respect.
  In addition to dramatic new control over workers, the administration 
wants the power to move the money around without congressional input. 
Let me tell you, given what I have seen so far, this is pretty scary 
news for families in Washington State. Right now, as a United States 
Senator, I can fight to make sure the needs in my State are being met. 
As elected Members of Congress, we know the needs in our communities 
and we are accountable to our voters. But the administration now wants 
accountants in the Office of Management and Budget to decide what is 
important to the people of my home State of Washington. If that 
happens, my constituents will lose out at a cost to their safety and 
security.
  Let's just look at what happened with the supplemental appropriations 
bill. Under the leadership of Chairman Byrd, the Appropriations 
Committee held unprecedented and comprehensive hearings on how to best 
meet our obligations to the American people. We spent countless hours 
hearing from national and local experts. We passed the funding to meet 
the needs before us. Congress passed that funding, but then the 
President eliminated more than $5 billion of it. With a wave of his 
hand, over the August break, the President eliminated funding that we 
here in Congress considered critical, after many hours of hearings, to 
protecting the American public.
  He eliminated $11 million from Coast Guard operations. The President 
eliminated, with a wave of his hand, $262 million for critical Coast 
Guard procurement, including funding for coastal patrol boats for our 
security. The President eliminated $150 million for our Nation's 
airports, as they are working so hard to meet the December deadline for 
installing explosive detection devices. And the President eliminated 
$480 million from its already shortchanged Transportation and Security 
Administration.
  The Office of Management and Budget has not been a good advocate for 
the people of my home State of Washington. Given that record, I am very 
reluctant to give OMB dramatic new power over the safety and security 
of my constituents. The OMB originally blocked the Coast Guard's 
desperately needed improvements to the marine 911 system. When they 
brought it to their attention, the OMB changed its policy, but under 
the President's plan there is no way for us in Congress to address the 
arbitrary decision made by the OMB. Granting the President dramatic new 
authority is not just a bureaucratic exercise. It has real consequences 
for the people I represent. I take that responsibility very seriously.

[[Page S8066]]

  If we are not going to figure out how all the functions are going to 
be performed and we can't tie money to functions, this reorganization 
may consign many functions to death, as we saw when the President 
eliminated $5.1 billion in homeland security funding.
  In closing, we need to better define the missions of the various 
agencies, and we need to make sure they continue to fulfill their 
traditional missions. It is essential for our economic security and our 
physical safety. The House bill does not strike a balance, and we have 
to do better. We need to really understand the consequences of this 
proposal and ensure that it will actually increase our homeland 
security and not jeopardize our citizens in other ways.
  I believe this has not been thought out enough and we should 
certainly not race to put a rubberstamp on such an incomplete proposal. 
I think every Senator feels pressure to do something, anything, about 
homeland security. But it is much more important to do the right thing.
  I look forward to having a good debate about the new Department of 
Homeland Security. There are a lot of serious questions, and I look 
forward to hearing some serious answers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator who 
is a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, as I have already 
indicated, for her exceedingly incisive remarks which reflect the high 
dedication that this Senator always brings to her work. I personally 
appreciate it, as the chairman of the committee. She is a fine member 
of that committee, and she has lived up to those--and far better--
encomiums than I have been able to deliver today.
  How much time does the distinguished senior Senator from New York 
wish to have?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will 15 minutes be all right?
  Mr. BYRD. Let's try 15 minutes and hope that will do the job.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator. Before my friend from Washington 
State leaves the floor, I want to thank her for her leadership on this 
issue. I particularly thank our distinguished leader, the senior 
Senator from West Virginia, for his leadership on this issue.
  The Senate, at certain times, has an important role--at all times it 
has important roles, but there is an important role that it has now, 
and that is for the Senate to be, of course, what one of the Founding 
Fathers called the cooling saucer. If there was ever a time where there 
was a need for that cooling saucer that the Senate should be and has 
been through its history in its finest moments, it is now. That is 
because we face a whole new challenge in these United States, a 
challenge that says every one of our citizens is on the front line.
  This new war on terrorism means that small groups of bad people can 
do real damage in our homeland. Until 9/11, this was something that was 
unknown to us. There were battlefronts and there was the homefront, but 
now the homefront is the battlefront, and the battlefront is the 
homefront and that demands dramatic and significant changes in our 
Government.
  If the senior Senator from West Virginia were not here, we probably 
would have just rolled over and we would not have had the kind of 
debate we are having.
  He knows his history, whether it be of the Roman Senate or of the 
U.S. Senate or all the various Senates in between. I was going to ask 
him--because my family and I just visited Venice--about the Venetian 
Senate, to see how that compared. I didn't even know Venice had a 
Senate until I visited, but we will get that history lesson at another 
time. We have more pressing issues now.
  The Senator from West Virginia is bringing the Senate to its best. He 
is not being obstructionist. He is not saying no. He is simply saying 
not to rush on such a major piece of legislation that is going to 
involve the most dramatic reorganization of the Government in history, 
on a major piece of legislation that is called on to defend us in 
brand-new ways.
  We no longer just have the battlefront, but we have the homefront. My 
citizens from New York believe they are on the battlefront. They walk 
into a subway car and they worry what might happen. A plane flies 
overhead and they worry what might happen. They look at a reservoir or 
powerplant and they worry what might happen. This is not a time to rush 
things through because the very safety of our citizens is at stake.
  When government was founded, when men and women got off their knees 
and founded government, it had two purposes: To protect from foreign 
invasion and keep the domestic tranquility. For the first time, those 
two issues were combined.
  A lengthy and worthy debate of the Senate is what is called for and 
the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, whom we all admire so, 
has summoned the best in us and asked us to do that. I am proud to get 
up here and ask for that.
  I would also like to praise my good friend from Connecticut. He has 
put together an excellent piece of legislation that talks about the 
Senate's prerogatives, not just today but as we go forward. It says a 
single man, albeit elected, the only man elected by all the people--the 
only person elected by all the people, so far, the President of the 
United States--should have some power. But this is not what the 
Founding Fathers intended. He should not be allowed to take one from 
one agency and put it in another. He should not be allowed to move 
employees from one place to another without the approval of the 
Congress.

  I regret to say that the House moved all too quickly. I am glad 
Senator Lieberman and his committee have had a chance to improve on the 
House legislation, and to improve on it in a very significant way in 
major areas that the Senator from Connecticut has outlined.
  What I am saying today is that we have to go beyond that as well and 
address some of the substantive areas of security--not simply how we 
reorder the Government and rearrange it, and not simply the balance of 
power between the President, the Senate, and the House, which is very 
important and worthy of debate--Senator Lieberman has put his oar in 
the water on that one and given it a powerful stroke, if we pass his 
proposal--but also to debate some of the substance of homeland 
security. I fear that if we simply rearrange the agencies and run away 
from spending the extra dollars we have to spend to make our homeland 
more secure, we will have not done the full job. That is why I feel so 
strongly about having a continued debate.
  Let me mention a few areas where I have had some expertise in that 
substantive area. No matter what you do about rearranging and putting a 
department here and a department there, we will still not be secure 
unless we delve into those departments.
  One which I am going to touch on briefly is a computer system 
throughout the Justice Department. Recognizing that we are not 
reorganizing the FBI or the CIA, let me focus on the areas where we 
are, such as the INS. Our computer systems are totally backward. We had 
a hearing in my Judiciary subcommittee which has oversight over the FBI 
where we showed that the computer systems of the FBI cannot search for 
two words. They can search for the word ``flight'' and for the word 
``school,'' but they cannot search for the words ``flight school.'' 
Something is dramatically the matter. The INS computers--we are moving 
the INS around--are just as bad, and maybe worse. Until we update those 
computers, all sorts of bad people with bad intentions will be able to 
get into this country even though another part of the Government knows 
they are bad. We should be addressing that problem when we are doing a 
homeland security bill.
  Then let me talk about the issue that is of greatest concern to me, 
which is, frankly, the issue that seems to be of great concern to our 
President, and rightfully so. To me, the worst danger I can conceive of 
that could befall us in this war on terrorism is that a terrorist group 
could smuggle a nuclear weapon, or a few, into this country and 
detonate them. As horrible as 9/11 was, as aching as my city and State 
are, it would pale before the damage of a nuclear explosion in downtown 
New York, or downtown Chicago, or downtown Houston, or downtown Los 
Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Kansas City, or anywhere else.

[[Page S8067]]

  Yet right now, if, God forbid, a terrorist group should get hold of 
such a nuclear weapon either by purchasing it from the few powers that 
have them that we are worried about--Pakistan, Russia, and, down the 
road, Iraq, if they develop enough U-238--that weapon could be smuggled 
into this country, say, on one of the large containers that are 
unloaded from our ships or brought through the borders--Canadian and 
Mexican--on trucks, with virtually no detection. What a surprising 
thought. It is no longer that a missile would deliver such a bomb or 
that a plane would deliver such a bomb but, rather, that it would come 
across our border at ground or water level. That is a frightening 
thought.

  The good news is we can do something about it. The good news, when 
you talk to the scientists at Brookhaven National Lab out on Long 
Island or Argonne Lab in the suburbs of Chicago, is they say we could 
develop a device that could at a distance of 40 or 50 feet detect 
nuclear weapons, if they, God forbid, should be smuggled into this 
country, because nuclear radioactivity involves gamma rays which can 
pierce all but lead. To deal with surrounding the bomb in lead, you can 
just use an x-ray detection device. The x ray would detect the lead. 
The problem is, they have the technology to do this, but it is only 
done in lab conditions in cyclotrons and atom smashers.
  We need it to go through every container that comes into America. 
Right now, the only way you can detect radiation is through a Geiger 
counter. Unfortunately, a Geiger counter has to be placed maybe 3 feet 
from the radioactive source. You can't go into every one of these big 
containers with a Geiger counter and push it up against every crate--
There are probably 30, 40, or 50 crates in each container; there are 
hundreds of containers on these ships and thousands that come across by 
truck--without bringing commerce to a standstill.
  The alternative is to develop a device that would do this 40 or 50 
feet away, and then install it on every crane that either loads or 
unloads a container bound for the United States, or that is here in the 
United States, and put it on every toll booth for a truck that goes 
over the Canadian border or Mexican border. The cost of developing this 
device is probably about $500 million, and then probably another $1 
billion to install it.
  The good senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner--obviously not of 
my party--and I have legislation that would begin to do this, that 
would start the research.
  For the love of me, why can't we get support for this? Why isn't the 
White House supporting this? We are very worried about Iraq producing 
nuclear weapons. We should be. But why aren't we making our homeland 
secure from the delivery of those nuclear weapons? Maybe it won't be 
Iraq. Maybe it will be Iran. Maybe it will be North Korea. Maybe it 
will be someone else we can't even think about.
  I think we should be able to debate that proposal on the floor of 
this Senate--not a year from now but now. I feel the urgency of this. 
The safety of our citizens is at stake. If it takes an extra day or 
two, so be it. That is the role of the Senate.
  Why doesn't the White House get behind this kind of proposal? For 
some reason, they won't. I think it is because they don't want to spend 
the money, as amplified by the recent almost virtual pocket veto of the 
$5 billion that was part of the appropriations bill. But I will bet if 
you ask each American if they would spend $1 billion to prevent nuclear 
weapons from being smuggled into our country and the worst kind of 
catastrophe imaginable to befall us, they would all say yes. If asked, 
my 99 colleagues would say yes.
  That is the kind of thing we are trying to do here--not be 
obstructionists. The Senator from West Virginia, as the leader of our 
band here, has made it clear he doesn't want to be an obstructionist. 
The Senator from Connecticut has made it clear he believes we have to 
do things to improve the legislation.
  I ask that we continue to debate this legislation. I understand we 
have time constraints. Those are real. I understand that. I understand 
we cannot debate this bill for 3 or 4 months right now. But we don't 
have to have an artificial deadline that it must be finished by next 
week. If we think that deadline is needed, let us stay in session, go 
in early, and stay in late until the major amendments are dealt with. I 
am confident my colleagues from Connecticut and Tennessee will deal 
with those amendments in a fair way. They are not trying to say it is 
their way or no way. In fact, that is why we have bills, and that is 
why we have them debated. But the reorganization of Government agencies 
is an important issue. I agree with it. I am supportive of it. But I do 
not think it is the only issue facing homeland security.

  And for our President--and I respect him and repeat that every New 
Yorker owes him a debt of gratitude for being so helpful in the $21 
billion this Senate so generously voted for and the House voted for--
but when he says the Senate is getting in the way, that the Senate 
better pass his bill his way, not the way I would want or the Senator 
from Connecticut would want or, in fact, the Senator from Tennessee 
would want, he is not being fair, not just to the Senate but to the 
American people because we do have a crisis. It is a slow crisis; it is 
an insidious crisis.
  Unfortunately, for politicians, the incentives are backward; in other 
words, we all love to allocate money, build a school, and get up there 
and say: Here is a school. But what is our goal with homeland security? 
What do we want to happen? Nothing. We are very successful if nothing 
happens. And that provides negative incentives or perverse incentives 
for the political process. That is the real worry.
  If we were to put $3 billion into the northern border, if we were to 
put $1 billion into the INS computer system, if we were to spend $1 
billion to----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional 
seconds to finish my thought.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 1 additional minute.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator.
  If we were to spend another $1 billion on nuclear weapons, I think it 
would be worth it. I think the American people would be for us. I may 
be wrong, but at least I would like the chance to debate and vote on 
issues I consider to be urgent, pressing needs for my constituency in 
my State that I love so, and for the people of the United States, for 
the country I love so.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from New York for a very 
thoughtful statement.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, be recognized at 5 
p.m. for a period of 10 minutes, out of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the President wants the Congress to grant 
the administration the authority to write its own civil service system, 
regardless of what has been written in current law, that would apply 
only to Federal workers within a new Department of Homeland Security.
  As I have expressed before on this floor, I am concerned that these 
changes mask the administration's larger hidden agenda, an agenda that 
would have the Federal Government function more like a big corporation. 
We all certainly ought to be concerned about that idea, given our 
recent experience with the inner workings of big corporations.
  I come, Mr. President, from the coalfields of southern West Virginia, 
not from a corporate boardroom. So I approach this with a different 
perspective than the administration, quite obviously. Before I would 
ever vote to approve a homeland security measure, I would want to know 
more about the working conditions of its prospective employees. Will 
the employees who currently enjoy collective bargaining rights continue 
to enjoy those same rights at the new Department? Will these employees 
have complete whistleblower protections?
  Before I vote to approve a homeland security measure, I want to know 
about the pay system. How will the payroll systems and personnel 
systems be merged into the new Department? How would the special pay 
rates, already in existence at the separate

[[Page S8068]]

agencies, coordinate or be replaced by a pay system if one were to be 
implemented? What will be the hiring procedures? What will be the 
firing procedures in this vast new order?
  Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer says these new procedures are 
needed to enable managers to fire workers who drink on the job. Would 
they also be able to fire workers because they join a union, because 
they vote Democratic, because they have red hair or no hair or lots of 
hair or white hair?
  The administration argues that the Secretary for Homeland Security 
will require significant flexibility in the hiring and firing process 
because, for example, according to the administration, existing due 
process and appeal rights make it impossible to fire or demote Federal 
employees who are poor performers.
  But this and other claims are simply not true. A report by the 
nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service recently stated:

       [W]hat is missing from the current debate . . . is the 
     institutional experience government has accumulated with 
     Title 5 modifications that have already successfully allowed 
     government agencies to emulate high-performing workplaces--
     without compromising merit principles, including protections 
     against politicized personnel decisions.

  Mr. President, the fact is, the administration currently enjoys broad 
flexibilities when it comes to the Federal workforce. A report by the 
Congressional Research Service points out:

       Executive branch departments and agencies currently have 
     considerable flexibility to perform personnel functions in 
     such areas as recruiting, hiring, compensation, promotion, 
     training, and retention. The extent to which the departments 
     and agencies are using the flexibilities is unknown.

  ``Unknown.''
  One of the most important protections granted by the civil service 
system, that could be eliminated under the President's proposal, is for 
whistleblowers. Remember Franklin's whistle? Remember the story about 
Benjamin Franklin's whistle, that he paid too much for his whistle? I 
am talking about whistleblowers, just now.
  The day the President made the announcement of his newfound support 
for a Department of Homeland Security was the very day that an FBI 
whistleblower, Coleen Rowley, was to testify before Congress on the 
embarrassing failures of that agency leading up to the September 11 
tragedy. It is clear the administration hoped to limit coverage of that 
hearing by offering its secret plan that was hatched in the bowels of 
the White House to establish a new Department of Homeland Security, on 
the same day--a plan, I might add, that would not provide its employees 
the same level of protection with regard to whistleblowers as that FBI 
agent enjoyed that day.
  Whistleblower protections are essential to protect Federal employees 
against managerial reprisals for lawfully disclosing information they 
believe demonstrates a violation of law or mismanagement of authority.
  The President seemed to agree with this principle when he issued an 
executive order on January 20, 2001, that required all Federal workers 
to obey their duty and report fraud, waste, and abuse.
  Excessive secrecy enforced by repression can threaten national 
security by covering up Government breakdowns that sustain unnecessary 
vulnerability to terrorism. An example from the post-September 11 
period provided by the American Federation of Government employees is 
illuminating. In testimony before the House Select Committee on 
Homeland Security, American Federation for Government Employees 
President, Bobby L. Harnage, Sr., provided the following story, and I 
quote from his testimony:

       In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, two 
     union officers of the National Border Patrol Council--border 
     agents Mark Hall and Mark Lindenmann--went on the NBC Today 
     Show and testified before Congress to speak out against 
     security on the United States northern border. They said that 
     despite all the talk, no new agents had been placed on the 
     northern border and that agents were not making criminal 
     background checks on people caught entering the United States 
     illegally. These statements prompted the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service supervisors to propose to summarily 
     fire the agents, stating in internal e-mails that ``the 
     President of the local union deemed it necessary to 
     independently question our readiness in a public forum,'' 
     that ``managers must take a stance which bears no tolerance 
     of dissent,'' and that managers must ``view resistance from 
     rank and file as insubordination.''

  Well, this is what employees are often up against when they speak out 
against the company line, even when the company line involves the 
security of the United States.
  Without knowledge that the union would represent them and that an 
impartial whistleblower hearing process was in place to review 
subsequent INS actions against them, we can be sure that they never 
would have said a word and Congress would never have heard the truth of 
what was really happening on the northern border of the United States.
  Before the August recess, Congress overwhelmingly approved state-of-
the-art corporate whistleblower protection as an encouragement for 
private sector workers to defend America's financial markets. Our 
homeland security requires similar rights for Government workers to 
make disclosures in defending American families against terrorism. 
Without full whistleblower protections in place, Congress would have 
had a difficult time in the past learning of the problems associated 
with governmental reorganizations, and there have been some serious 
problems in our recent history.
  As a rule of thumb, it is important to remember that Federal 
Government reorganizations have been difficult to accomplish. As James 
M. Lindsay, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, recently said:
  History suggests we never get reorganizations right the first time, 
and this is an especially ambitious proposal. A lot of follow-through 
will be needed to make it work.
  Recent experience in providing the executive branch with flexibility 
in establishing a new Government agency holds great lessons for what we 
are being asked to do today. This flexibility failed in an identical 
experiment at the Federal Aviation Administration in which Congress 
gave the flexibility to replace merit system and collective bargaining 
procedures with so-called superior management alternatives. The result 
was chaos. Personnel disputes rose sharply, morale plummeted, and the 
mishmash of employee organizations sprang up to replace coherent labor-
management dialog in disputes from all directions.
  In the year 2000, Congress learned the obvious lesson and restored 
the merit system's due process procedures and remedies. What about the 
new Transportation Security Agency that was created last year? Congress 
reluctantly agreed to the administration's request for exceptions to 
the civil service system for employees at the new agency because they 
wanted to streamline personnel procedures to allow faster hiring and 
provide for flexibility and shifting people among jobs as the new 
agency was established. That sounds familiar, doesn't it?
  The results have been mixed at best. Recall that just a few short 
weeks ago the administration fired its hand-picked director of the new 
Transportation Safety Administration, John W. McGaw, only 6 months 
after the agency was established. Creating an effective and efficient 
Department of Homeland Security and retaining the basic rights of 
Federal workers are not mutually exclusive.
  I am not here to say our civil service system is perfect, but I do 
say that using the security of the United States and the rights of 
Federal workers as a bargaining chip to further a political agendum is 
simply unacceptable. What an irony that this administration is using an 
attack by terrorists who have no respect for the rule of law or the 
rights of workers as a justification for us not to respect our own laws 
or the rights of workers.
  So I am grateful for this opportunity today to speak on this issue. I 
am grateful for the opportunity for the Senate to address the issue. I 
ask the distinguished Senator from Wyoming if he wishes to speak.
  Mr. THOMAS. I do.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.

[[Page S8069]]

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to comment for a few minutes on the 
subject that is before the Senate. I am not a member of the committee. 
I have not spent as much time on it as have others. But I think there 
are probably different views and we have heard the same views now for 
quite a long time. Perhaps it would be well to talk a little bit about 
some of the other points of view that might be available and might be 
discussed later. I understand this is not actually on the issue but, 
rather, on a motion to proceed thereto. It is a very important issue, 
of course.
  Nothing could be more important than homeland security. We have 
talked about it and we continue to talk about it at great length. The 
fact is, it is a high priority, certainly, for all of us to protect the 
homeland. In order to do that, we need to have a homeland security 
department with the most effective management that we can have, the 
most effective employees, and a system that works as effectively as 
possible. So we support plans that protect workers through civil 
rights, equal opportunity guarantees, whistleblower protections, and 
all those fundamental rights which will be kept. Accountability is also 
a must, and giving the department flexibility in hiring and firing and 
creating a powerful deterrent for others to ensure they don't engage in 
behavior that would endanger homeland protection.
  The bill now before us will compromise national security and place 
more importance, frankly, on bureaucracy and bureaucratic security than 
on national security. That really is not the issue here.
  This is not a new issue. The President has the authority in every 
other agency, but there seems to be an inclination to be able to roll 
it back for the Department of Homeland Security. Under this bill, the 
President would have more flexibility to make decisions--or should 
have--for reasons of national security, and for HUD, for the Department 
of Education, he would have more than he does under this proposal. That 
seems strange to me. This is a proposal that deals with those kinds of 
emergencies--the things that are changeable--and flexibility needs to 
be there.
  So it seems to me that without some basic flexibility to manage, 
freedom to hire the right people, fire the wrong people, that national 
security would be at risk and not be secure. Here are some examples. 
The Senate bill prevents the President from holding services 
accountable. Last month, two America West pilots showed up to work 
drunk. They showed up on Monday and were fired on Tuesday. If they had 
been INS personnel, it would have taken 18 months--540 days--to be held 
accountable. These are the kinds of issues with which we have to deal. 
This is not the normal effort. There is a bottom line that the 
President does need to have sufficient flexibility. After all, it is 
the President and the people in the executive branch who are going to 
do the job. What we do is give them the opportunity and the flexibility 
to do it.

  Certainly there are controls. These controls will not be gone. But we 
have to provide the opportunity to the person who will be responsible 
for carrying out this role. It is easy to sit here and talk about all 
the restraints we should have because we do not have to do that job; 
someone else does.
  The Senate bill does not provide the new Department budget transfer 
authority. Without transfer authority, if intelligence indicated 
terrorists were developing a new type of biological weapon, the 
Secretary would be unable to transfer funds from one division to 
another to acquire additional medicines or vaccines or improve 
detection equipment. It does not provide the flexibility to attract, 
hire, and reward good performance or hold poor performers accountable. 
That is what we need to do in all of Government, but more particularly 
in this Department where they are going to face issues they have never 
before faced.
  The Office of Personnel Management reports it can take up to 5 months 
or more to hire a new Federal employee and 18 months to terminate. If 
one is not getting the job done, is this what we want in homeland 
defense? I do not think so.
  The bill does not provide for reorganization authority. The Senate 
bill will prevent the new Secretary from consolidating inspection work 
of the Customs Service, Border Patrol, and Agriculture inspectors at 
our ports of entry, leaving the current seam between these activities. 
Frankly, that has been the weakness in our system since September 11--
there is information here, there is information there, and we need to 
bring it together in a seamless way, and that is one of the strengths 
and one of the purposes of this whole operation. Yet this bill will not 
allow that to happen.
  It will strip the President of existing authority to act to preserve 
national security. The Senate would take away the President's existing 
authority to exempt agencies in the new Department of collective 
bargaining requirements where national security requires it. Ever since 
President Jimmy Carter used this important national security authority 
in time of war--we are in a war of terrorism. To weaken the President's 
authority seems to be contradictory of where we are or where we need to 
go.
  Certainly, there needs to be great discussion, and I admire the 
emphasis and effort that has been made. I certainly respect the 
judgment everyone brings to this Chamber, but there are differences of 
view, and they ought to be reflected, and they will be reflected, in 
the bill. We are getting the impression today, however, that there is 
nothing right about the bill, that the way the President has requested 
it is all wrong, and that cannot be the case. There has to be a 
balance, and I am sure there will be an effort to strike a balance.
  Of course, we have to recognize rules that do protect Federal 
workers. And, indeed, there should be rules. They represent the best in 
America, and they deserve strong civil service protections under the 
President's plan. Employees of the new Department will continue to be 
protected by important civil service laws, rules, and regulations that 
protect them against discrimination on the basis of age, disability, 
race, color, or religion. Those protections will be there, protected by 
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission, the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Hatch 
Act, Government ethical standards, and they should continue, and indeed 
they will.
  I know this is a very important issue. I know also that many Senators 
have worked very hard and are seeking to do what they believe is best 
to put together this homeland defense bill. But I do believe there has 
to be some recognition that this is different, that we are asking the 
executive branch to carry out a job that is unusual in a different 
time. It has to have some flexibility so that the decisions to 
accomplish what it is all about can be made. That is what the President 
and those who have put together this original proposition are for.
  A letter has been written by the former Governor of Pennsylvania that 
lays out the need for these flexibilities very persuasively. I happen 
to agree. Certainly there are limits to what we want to do, but we do 
want to make this a successful effort and give those who are in charge 
of handling it the flexibility to make it work. I hope we will balance 
this bill.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I know Senator Boxer is expected around 5. I would 
like to speak for a few moments until then.
  I thank my colleague from Wyoming for his statement. To pick up on 
what he said, that one might get the impression listening to the debate 
that there was not anything good in this bill--specifically in the 
President's proposal on homeland security--there is a natural way, when 
amendments are filed, to focus on where we disagree, where the 
amendment disagrees with the underlying bill. But there is a big 
iceberg under the surface on which there seems to be disagreement. On 
that there is great agreement. In fact, I believe, though it is hard to 
quantify this, that more than 90 percent of the bill the Governmental 
Affairs Committee approved in late July is exactly the same as what 
President Bush desires. It is quite similar to the bill the Democratic 
majority on the committee adopted by a 9-to-7 vote in May which, in 
turn, is similar to the proposal of

[[Page S8070]]

the commission headed by our colleagues, former Senators Gary Hart and 
Warren Rudman.
  There is enormous agreement on what I would say are the guts of this 
bill and the guts of a new Department of Homeland Security: Coordinate 
the disparate agencies that are now disorganized, overlapping, creating 
gaps and vulnerabilities that terrorists took advantage of on September 
11 and will again unless we close those gaps and eliminate those 
vulnerabilities. We cannot let that happen. Border security agencies 
are being brought together; emergency response is being centralized, 
working much more closely with State and local officials; 
infrastructure protection; intelligence, most important, to create that 
one place where all the dots come together so that we can see the 
terrorist plots before they are carried out and stop them; science and 
technology. Let's use the brain power, the innovation, as the Defense 
Department has, to make us as successful in the battle to defend the 
American people at home as those technological innovations have made us 
abroad in the fight in pursuit of our principles and our national 
interest.
  Most of this proposal enjoys broad bipartisan support. There are a 
few parts of the proposal right at the center which are in dispute. I 
understand the President does not support our proposal for a strong 
intelligence division in the new Department. It is critically important 
to break down the barriers that existed and still exist, to some 
degree, between the FBI, the CIA, local law enforcement, and State and 
local law enforcement as opposed to Federal law enforcement; bring all 
those dots together on one table so they can see the outline of what is 
coming and stop it before it happens.
  There is dispute from the White House on our national office to 
combat terrorism because we want the nomination of the director of that 
office to be approved by the Senate. So these are real disputes related 
to homeland security.
  The dispute that is going on now and the question of civil service 
rights is not relevant. I hate to see it stand as an obstacle in the 
path to adopting legislation creating a Department of Homeland Security 
which, as I say, will give the President at least 90 percent of what he 
wants in this new Department. In fact, far from limiting the authority 
of the new Secretary of Homeland Security with regard to the management 
flexibility that that Secretary has, our legislation protects the 
existing flexibility in law.
  The new Secretary would be able to remove employees for poor 
performance, transfer employees as needed, reward and give bonuses to 
those who perform ably. In fact, we add by this legislation to the 
existing management flexibility that the new Secretary would have 
because of a bipartisan amendment worked on very hard and thoughtfully 
by Senator Voinovich and Senator Akaka which would give the President 
and the Secretary of Homeland Security new powers to reward employees, 
attract top talent and reshape the workforce. It is quite an advance.
  So far from limiting the management flexibility of the new Secretary, 
we are increasing it beyond what any other Secretary has today, and we 
give the administration an open invitation, specifically in the letter 
in regard to the legislation we are proposing, by requiring the 
Secretary to come back every 6 months and to offer legislative 
recommendations.
  We specifically enumerate this again on personnel management that 
emerges from the experience the Secretary has over those 6 months.
  We have to remember that the civil service system evolved for a 
reason. It was designed to create some accountability, to protect the 
Federal workforce from favoritism, from patronage, from politicization, 
by creating a transparent framework for a merit-based personnel system. 
Obviously, it is not perfect. That is why we included these major 
reforms in the bill we reported out of our committee. But to 
essentially discard it, as the President's proposal would do, to give 
the Secretary and the President effectively unlimited authority to 
rewrite the civil service rules, would be a real step backward.
  A lot of this has to do with accountability. Accountability is an 
important goal in our public life and our public service. When people 
are being taken from the place where they work now--28 different 
agencies and offices, the Customs Service, the Coast Guard, the 
Transportation Security Agency, FEMA--and they are brought into this 
new Department, I think most managers in the private sector would want 
to do it in a way that would encourage those employees to believe we 
are all on the same team and we expect the most from them, we are going 
to work with them.
  By pulling away these civil service protections, I think we are going 
to have exactly the opposite effect. At a time when the average worker 
would naturally be anxious about a change of office or status, we are 
going to hang a sword over their heads that says no more civil service 
protection; they will lose their rights and, at worst, their job 
without the right to protest and seek review.
  Responding to the Senator from Wyoming, I say he is right, that some 
of our colleagues have not said enough positively either about the 
President's proposal particularly, because it is embraced in so much of 
what the committee will bring to the floor.

  There are these disagreements. I hope we can work them out. I hope 
where they are fundamental, we can put them off for 6 months and do the 
urgent work, which is to get this bill done.
  Let me say a word while I am speaking about items in dispute that I 
hope can be put off. This is the question of collective bargaining. I 
must say I have learned a lot about this. I have not been involved in 
some of these questions for a while, and I learned that collective 
bargaining rights were extended to Federal employees for the first time 
in 1962 by Executive order of President Kennedy and then were embraced 
in statute in 1978 under President Carter. In both the Executive order 
and the statute, there was a provision made that reflected, I think, 
special concerns during the cold war which said that if the President 
determined that union membership in a given agency or office was 
inconsistent with national security, the President could remove the 
right to collectively bargain without giving a reason other than to say 
it was inconsistent with national security, without any right of review 
or appeal by the employees who were therefore losing a basic right, 
which is to join a union.
  I do point out that Federal employees can neither strike nor in most 
cases do they negotiate for their salaries, which are usually set by 
statute.
  I am going to stop for a moment and ask my friend and colleague from 
Pennsylvania whether he would like to address the Senate on the motion 
before us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I had not expected to address the Senate on this issue, 
but I never turn down an invitation.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Should I rescind my offer?
  Mr. SPECTER. The Senator could, but not after it has been accepted.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Go right ahead. We both learned that at the same law 
school.
  Mr. SPECTER. Senator Lieberman and I went to the same law school, and 
I think he knows one can rescind an offer, but not after it is 
accepted. At that point, it is too late.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I am pleased to have the Senator have the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. I am glad to see the legislation on homeland security on 
the floor. This is historic legislation. As the distinguished Senator 
from Connecticut has said, this is maybe the most important bill that 
will come out of his committee during his tenure. It is my hope we can 
move through the bill, go to conference, and have legislation on the 
President's desk which the President can accept.
  One of the key points at issue is the way the analysis of 
intelligence is going to be structured, and it is my hope that we will 
be able to take a step at this time on reforms which have long been in 
the making.
  When I chaired the Intelligence Committee in the 104th Congress, I 
proposed legislation which would have brought under one umbrella the 
CIA and all of the intelligence agencies. There is on the President's 
desk now a similar proposal. It would be acceptable to this Senator to 
have that umbrella control really anywhere, but the

[[Page S8071]]

turf wars which are well-known to be endemic and epidemic in this city 
have prevented that kind of umbrella or overview.
  The proposal which I think is indispensable is not to change the 
operation of the CIA or the FBI or the Defense Intelligence Agency or 
National Security, but when it comes to analysis, to bring it all 
together so that the analysts are under one umbrella. I believe that 
had there been an umbrella prior to September 11, 2001, there is a good 
chance that 9/11 could have been prevented.
  We know by hindsight about the FBI report out of Phoenix, and about 
the young man who had Osama bin Laden's picture on his wall while 
studying flight training, as well as other indicia of connections to 
Osama bin Laden. We know about the application for a warrant under the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of Zacarias Moussaoui, which 
would have yielded very substantial information about his connections 
to al-Qaeda. We know about the two at Kuala Lumpur, known to the CIA, 
but not communicated to the FBI or Immigration and Naturalization 
Service in a timely way. We know of the information from the National 
Security Agency on September 10, a threat, that was not translated 
until September 12. There are other factors at issue here where we 
could have connected the dots, as the metaphor is used.

  This bill is a very substantial undertaking. I discussed the matter 
on a number of occasions with the distinguished Senator from Tennessee 
who raises a valid consideration that this bill may be going too far in 
the sense that it takes in a great deal of territory. It does that. 
However, the question is, When will it be done, if not now?
  The business of consolidating Federal agencies is a Herculean task 
facing all sorts of obstacles, and it is only the event of 9/11 and the 
threat of another 9/11 which is a motivating factor to make these 
enormous changes.
  Earlier today I heard the Senator from Tennessee say next year would 
be time enough to study the intelligence agencies. There is one big 
problem with that: The Senator from Tennessee will not be here next 
year. We need to take advantage of his skill this year.
  Perhaps almost as important as the skill of the Senator from 
Tennessee is the momentum which we have. I have offered to give him 
some tips on his new job. I saw a headline in the paper the other day, 
``Senator Thompson Demoted to District Attorney.'' First of all, I do 
not know that it is a demotion because I have held that position. 
However, that is what the headline said, Senator Thompson demoted.
  I was surfing on Sunday. It is hard to surf and not see Senator 
Thompson or Senator Lieberman, or both of them. Senator Thompson was in 
a heated exchange with former Secretary Eagleburger, and then the 
program was interrupted for some entertainment. I thought Secretary 
Eagleburger and Senator Thompson were entertaining. They put on a 
portion of this television show. I wonder how many ex-district 
attorneys in the Senate turned down that television contract before 
Senator Thompson got it?
  At any rate, Senator Thompson was sitting behind a big desk in a 
dimly lit room and two assistant district attorneys approach him. I 
could not get the gist of it entirely, but I guess the thrust of it was 
someone in the room was in favor of legalizing drugs. The comment was 
made: What about our war on drugs? This District Attorney Thompson 
said: We have to have a war on something in Congress for people to be 
elected.
  It seemed a little cynical for him to turn on his colleagues even 
before he is on his new payroll. I trust the Ethics Committee would not 
let him be on the payroll yet, although he is doing those shows.
  Back to a serious vein, this is the time to do it. I talked to 
Governor Ridge after a meeting he had with the President today. I have 
supplied him with language and I sent a copy of it to Senator Lieberman 
and a copy to Senator Thompson. The President wants to be sure that the 
President has the authority to continue to work with the CIA as he 
always has. Absolutely, he should have that authority. He does have 
that authority. There is nothing we can do in legislation that would 
change it. The change in the language was made to have the analysis 
groups under one umbrella, subject to the President's direction to the 
contrary.
  An earlier draft stated the reverse, that the President can direct 
all of these intelligence agencies to coordinate. You cannot wait for 
the President to make a direction. He is too busy to do it. The 
generalization has to be that they will be working together under one 
umbrella, and they will be coordinating the analysis, but this must be 
made explicit in statute. If the President wants to change that, of 
course he can. I do not think he needs that authority in the statute, 
but I am pleased to eliminate any question about it. It is my hope we 
can find some common ground on that question.

  Washington, DC, has a way of having matters slide if we do not strike 
while the iron is hot. It is hard to get anything done in Washington, 
DC, while the iron is hot. However, when it cools off, it is 
extraordinarily difficult. It has been a long time and many efforts 
have been made to bring these agencies together. It is a limited 
juncture to call on the analytical sections to be under one umbrella.
  Homeland security will do a lot in response to another 9/11, but if 
that happens, it is really a very sad situation. Ninety-nine percent of 
our effort needs to be made to prevent it. If we have to respond to 
another 9/11, we are in deep trouble. Maybe something even more serious 
may occur--not that 9/11 was not serious enough, but it may involve 
weapons of mass destruction. Who knows what it may involve. We have a 
very heavy responsibility to do everything we can to prevent it. When 
we look at what was known before, with the dots there, and the 
possibility of putting them together, that is what we have to work 
toward.
  I have worked a lot with the principals on this issue. I had the 
opportunity to serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee. I know the 
work of Senator Thompson, who was chairman, and Senator Lieberman, who 
is now chairman. We have structured this to accommodate all of the 
competing interests.
  I think it will probably be a long day before Senator Lieberman will 
make an ex parte invitation for me to speak again. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I do not regret the acceptance by the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, and I thank him very much for his remarks. He went right 
to the heart of one of the most important debates we will have on the 
bill, which is how do we structure the intelligence division of this 
new Department to make sure that we never again look back, as we have 
now after September 11, and say these barriers to communication between 
the FBI, the CIA, a whole bunch of people, if those barriers had been 
broken, and all the information was in one place, we might well have 
been able to prevent September 11. We have to have it within our power 
to do that.
  I understand some of the concerns of the White House, but I do think 
the phrasing that Senator Specter has talked about is just right. I 
hope he may play a role in bringing us all together on this. I thank 
him, also, for the fact that he was my lead cosponsor; I was his lead 
cosponsor in October of last year when we introduced the original 
version of the bill creating the Department of Homeland Security which, 
in fairness, was based in good measure on the recommendation of the 
Hart-Rudman Commission. I look forward to his active participation in 
this debate and the days ahead.
  Under a previous order, I believe Senator Boxer was to be recognized 
next, with the time to be taken from Senator Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator Lieberman for all his hard work on this 
bill, and Senator Thompson as well. I thank Senator Byrd because in his 
50 years in Congress, he has seen a lot and he has raised some very 
important issues at which this Senate ought to look. I rise to say 
thank you to him and to make note that when Senator Lieberman first 
brought the concept of Homeland Security and a Cabinet-level position 
for Tom Ridge, this administration was not for that in any way, shape, 
or form.

[[Page S8072]]

  It is my understanding not having been on the committee, to my 
sadness--maybe if I was, I would have had more to say in how this bill 
would come about--my understanding is that not one Republican voted for 
the first version of that bill in the committee itself.
  So we see a real transition from something that was an idea Senator 
Lieberman had, the Democrats supported, to one that has been embraced, 
with some very important differences that will come out on this 
floor. I want to talk to some of those, as well as some of my own 
concerns.

  I have been in elected life now for 26 years--not as long as Senator 
Byrd, but long enough to know that reshuffling a structure doesn't 
necessarily mean you are going to solve your problem. As a matter of 
fact, it could in many ways make people less accountable, hiding under 
more layers of bureaucracy. So I approach this debate with an attitude 
that basically says I am not so sure about this.
  I think what Senator Byrd is trying to do here by speaking with some 
of us who have some of these problems with the bill is to try to see if 
we can let the Senate work its will and shape this so it does not 
become an unwieldy bureaucracy that will be not more accountable but 
less accountable.
  We all know what brought us together as a country was what happened 
on September 11. We will never forget it, and we will commemorate it. 
But I agree with those who say we have to do this right. It would be a 
disservice to those who were so adversely impacted if we were to set 
some artificial deadline for restructuring of the Government, a 
restructuring which is so huge that a Brookings Institution scholar, 
Paul Light, said:

       I would rank it the No. 1 reorganization in American 
     history in terms of difficulty.

  My view is this should be done right. We should keep congressional 
accountability in the process and not give up the very important powers 
we have under the Constitution, the checks and balances, not just for 
this administration but for any administration.
  It is interesting to hear President Bush's own words. He says it is 
the most extensive reorganization of the Federal Government since the 
1940s.
  The amendment is 350 pages. I say to Senator Lieberman, I believe he 
has done an incredible job of improving the bill from the House 
version, and I certainly shudder to think if that House version were to 
become law because it has a lot of serious problems. So I say straight 
out to Senator Lieberman, thank you for your work in this regard.
  Senator Conrad made a point today to some of us, stating he had heard 
from the OMB Director way before September 11 that changing the civil 
service protections was one of the things this administration has 
always wanted to do and that all the things that are contained in the 
House bill, as they would pertain to the employees of this new 
organization, are not new things to this administration. They have 
wanted to break the back, if you will, of whistleblower protection in 
other cases. They have wanted to break the back of any type of 
collective bargaining.
  As we know, Federal employees cannot strike, nor should they. That is 
not an issue. But this administration would like to weaken the 
protections that do belong to Federal employees.
  I think Senator Lieberman made a very good point when he said, in a 
conversation with some of us in leadership, that the protections in his 
bill that are afforded to the Federal employees who would work in 
homeland defense are the very same protections that are afforded to the 
Department of Defense civilian employees.
  So it seems to me a rather cruel thing to say you are creating a 
Department that, next to the Department of Defense--and maybe even in 
some cases, in some circumstances, even more--for these people who 
would be put in the line of fire, that we would, as one of the first 
things, look at weakening the rights they are afforded and make them 
second-class citizens. This is very disturbing to me.

  Think back to September 11, to the heroes of September 11. They were 
not anyone in this Chamber. They were not anyone in the back room 
writing this bill. They were working people. They were people, yes, who 
were afforded the protections of collective bargaining; yes, afforded 
the protections of union membership. They never looked at their watch 
and said: Oh, gee, I have been on the 74th floor of the World Trade 
Center, and now I have worked 8 hours and I am coming down.
  I just think it is most unfortunate that the President would not take 
this opportunity to keep us together here, focused on protecting our 
magnificent country and the people who reside therein, and instead use 
it as an opportunity to get through some of the things he was unable to 
get through in other bills. It is very disturbing to me.
  I think Senator Lieberman has shown tremendous leadership in standing 
strong for those protections. Again, the heroes of September 11 were 
union members. The heroes of September 11 never let us down. How do you 
create a new Department such as this and undercut these employees when 
they need to be at their top performance level, where they need to have 
the best morale, where they need to believe they are not treated worse, 
certainly, than any other Federal employee?
  There are other things Senator Lieberman did in this bill that I 
applaud. A weakening of the Freedom Of Information Act that is in the 
House bill--that would have been a mess for us. Many of our communities 
want to know what chemicals are polluting their air, ground, and water. 
Again, some in the House use this as a way to weaken that act and say: 
We cannot give out that information; the terrorists may get it. A 
mother of little children needs to know if there is arsenic in a plant, 
if there is a harmful pollutant at a plant. Therefore, I am very 
pleased that, with Senator Leahy's help, where he was able to fix this, 
that is not a problem.
  For the remainder of my remarks, I focus on the Federal Emergency 
Management Administration and a couple of other agencies that were just 
lifted and taken lock, stock, and barrel into this new, enormous 
creation called the Department of Homeland Security. In California, we 
suffer from every kind of natural disaster you can imagine, from 
earthquakes to fire, to flood, to drought, to pestilence. We see it 
all. Unfortunately, we see it often.
  People sometimes say to me: Senator, why do people want to stay in 
California? Every other month, you are having another crisis.
  I guess you have to just be there to understand. You are living in an 
area that is God's gift to the world. With that beauty come all these 
problems.
  The bottom line of it is, we, unfortunately, have a terrible share of 
these disasters. Putting the Federal Emergency Management 
Administration, lock, stock and barrel, into this new Department I just 
think is going to be a real problem for us. Why not just take those 
folks in the Department who would work on homeland security but leave 
the others in place?
  It took many years to straighten out the problems of FEMA. I have 
gone through the worst of it. Under President Clinton and under James 
Lee Witt, we saw a tremendous uplifting of FEMA's morale. They know 
what they are doing now. All of us, Democrats and Republicans, have 
benefited from that. Our people have benefited from that. Now we are 
moving this, lock, stock and barrel, and I am very worried about 
accountability.
  Others have spoken of the Coast Guard. I feel the same way about 
that. Search and rescue--last year, the Coast Guard saved 530 lives in 
California. I know how important they are to homeland security, but the 
same thing should apply here. You do not have to lift the whole thing 
up, lock, stock, and barrel.
  We also have the INS situation, where the immigration and 
naturalization services are very far behind.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 2 additional minutes to the distinguished Senator 
from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator Byrd. Now that he is here, I can tell him 
how much I appreciate his raising the red flags.
  The INS, backlogged with processing immigration--good people, kind 
people, family people. It seems to me, again, we should have done this 
in a little bit of a different way.
  If we really want to do something for homeland security, I would 
rather see

[[Page S8073]]

us spend the $5 billion that we passed in this Senate that spoke to the 
need of homeland security and aviation security. We need more machines 
to check bags for bombs. We know the things we need to do at our ports. 
We lack the infrastructure. Instead of spending time moving pegs on a 
board and lifting agencies from one desk to another, I would rather go 
back and send the President that $5 billion and say to him that we 
don't understand why he refused to spend this money. If he is so 
concerned about homeland security, why did he say he wasn't going to 
spend this? He said it was bad for the economy because of the deficit.
  I was an economics major. One thing we know is that if the Government 
spends and invests in the needs of the people, such as homeland 
security, it is going to create thousands of jobs, and it would do 
something that is important. It doesn't help the economy to sit on that 
money. Frankly, it does not help the economy or homeland security if 
you create a big bureaucracy and they have no place to even put these 
people. And, by the way, if they are just going to be changed in name 
only, it is very confusing to me why we are doing this.
  From all of my years in public life, I think we could have done this 
in a very lean and mean way. We could have made this a Cabinet-level 
position, which most of us supported. If the President wanted it to 
happen, he could have said we are going to have people dispatched who 
report to Tom Ridge and to each of these agencies and start to bring 
back and forth to him what we need to do in those agencies.
  I thank you very much, Mr. President. I have a lot of serious 
questions about this.
  I thank my colleagues for their consideration.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we have had a good discussion on this 
motion to proceed.
  I thank Senator Byrd for doing what he has done. I will say publicly 
what I told him privately before the recess: I thought he was doing all 
of us a favor by slowing us down a little bit. There was an awful lot 
of talk about we must get this done by September 11 for symbolic 
reasons, and symbolism is important. But it is not nearly as important 
as it is to get this right. We will not get it right forever. We will 
be dealing with it probably for some time to come. But it is important 
to get it as right as we can. I think it is very important that we take 
the time necessary to do that. We can disagree as to how long is enough 
time. But I do think we can all agree that in retrospect, we were kind 
of headed toward a stampede there for a little while where we wanted to 
get something passed so we could say we got something passed. That 
receives short-term benefits maybe to us but it doesn't do much in 
terms of long-term benefits to the country. I think we are where we 
need to be now. We have come back. We have had a chance to digest this, 
discuss it, debate it in a public forum, and now to discuss it here on 
the floor.
  Senator Byrd made some very interesting and valid points about things 
that we need to consider. He, I think rightfully, pointed out that the 
NSA creation was probably the model that not only the President is 
going by, but the model that we all can have in terms of importance and 
in terms of how long it takes to put these things together. It took a 
good while to put the National Security Agency together. I believe it 
took 6 months between the time the bill was introduced and the time 
that it was passed. I point out that it was after a war. I do think 
probably Congress had a little more leisure during those days than we 
have. It was 2 years after the war. Of course, we are just beginning 
our endeavor. We don't have quite the leisure that perhaps the Congress 
did at that time.
  We have been considering the overall concept one way or another, 
formally or informally, for some time. The Gilmore Commission came in 
December of 2000 with a recommendation for a Homeland Security 
Department. The Hart-Rudman Commission came out in February, I believe, 
of last year, with a recommendation. We didn't pay enough attention to 
it soon enough. But it was out there. It was discussed and considered 
at that time. Congress, from time to time, has certainly considered 
many of the component problems that have led to this bill.
  For example, the problems with the INS are certainly no secret. We 
have been dealing with that. We have been dealing with other problems 
the Government has.
  I suggest the time is ripe, and there is no reason now for us not to 
address this issue after we have had a full-fledged discussion. I think 
the analogy to the Transportation Security Administration that was 
referred to and that was referred to in the newspaper today is a good 
one. I think it shows the difficulty that we have when we establish an 
agency that is having to recreate itself on the one hand and do the job 
on the other simultaneously. That is a very good point. What we are 
doing here in terms of the Department of Homeland Security is TSA 
enlarged in many respects.
  That leads me to perhaps a slightly different conclusion. That leads 
me to the conclusion that what we need to do to avoid that problem is 
to give the people who are in charge and have the responsibility for 
making sure this works the tools they can use to make it work. We had a 
civil service organization system, and we had a management system, the 
paradigm for which was established many years ago. We live in a 
different world now. That is what the President is talking about when 
he is talking about managerial flexibility and having the tools with 
which to manage this thing.

  If you talk to corporate leaders who have undergone transitions that 
are much less complicated than what we are doing, they talk about how 
difficult it is and how important it is to have the right kind of 
culture but also to have the managerial talent, the managerial 
wherewithal and flexibility to address those thousands of problems and 
difficulties that you are going to have in trying to pull all these 
factors together. These corporate managers don't even have Congress to 
answer to or deal with or worry about. Certainly, when it comes to 
Government, Congress cannot deal with each of these issues.
  We have to either trust our leadership to the point of giving them 
some managerial flexibility or not. I think that is what we are doing 
here. That is what this is all about. It is not a major grant of new 
power; it is a granting of power by Congress after thorough 
deliberation to better manage what Congress is establishing within the 
discretion of Congress, and having the annual appropriations process, 
among other hearings and considerations, in which to evaluate what is 
going on. I think we have to give that kind of authority if we are 
going to place on these people the kinds of responsibilities that we 
are placing on them.
  There has been a concern expressed about personal liberties. 
Democracy always has to--especially a democracy under attack--balance 
the national security of the country with the personal liberties that 
we hold so dear. I think we have done a pretty good job of that. Some 
of the things that the administration has done have been somewhat 
controversial. They are not really reflected in this bill. This bill 
really doesn't deal with any of those things. But I do think it is 
appropriate to point out that in other times President Lincoln 
instituted habeas corpus. President Roosevelt had internments, and 
things of that nature. Other Presidents have taken rather severe action 
when they deemed it necessary in times of war and in times of national 
security. We are not even approaching things of that nature. And we are 
not really even approaching the subject matter in this bill.
  So I respectfully suggest that there is no danger here of giving the 
President too much power. The danger, quite frankly, is that we are 
establishing a new Department that is complex, multifaceted, and is 
going to be difficult to organize without giving the President some 
authority that several other Government agencies already have, that the 
Congress has already given them.
  We will have an opportunity to discuss this later when appropriate 
amendments come up. But in the area of national security, and in the 
area of flexibility with regard to some of these agencies, what the 
President is basically asking for is the same authority that prior 
Presidents have had in the national security area, and the same

[[Page S8074]]

authority for this new Department that other Department heads already 
have. So I do not think we need to concern ourselves overly about that. 
But I will say that it is refreshing to stand on this floor, to sit and 
listen to someone such as Senator Byrd talk about first principles, 
talk about the basic function of government, talk about the things the 
forefathers concerned themselves with, and the things we should concern 
ourselves with as we go forward with this bill. But I suggest that it 
is time we go forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-four minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I begin my closing remarks where I should begin, by 
thanking Senator Lieberman and Senator Thompson for the leadership they 
have demonstrated in holding hearings, in holding the markups, in 
exploring the questions that were asked, in attempting to find 
solutions to questions and concerns and problems that occurred to them 
through others and sometimes not through others. I thank these two 
Senators who represent, I believe, the finest.
  I have been a Member of the body now 44 years next January 3, the 
Lord willing. The fine old woman who raised me taught me to say that: I 
will do thus and so or so and so, the Lord willing. Of course, that 
comes from the Book of James, the 4th chapter, and the 14th and 15th 
verses: Don't say that you will go to a city tomorrow and that you will 
purchase thus and so and that you will do thus and so, but say, the 
Lord willing, you will go and do thus and so.
  And I thank these Senators. I am glad that the Good Lord has 
permitted me to live in this age when we can have Senators who acquire 
the high qualities of the two Senators who are about to manage the 
legislation that will create a Homeland Security Department.
  I favor the creation of a Homeland Security Department. And I think 
that the Senate within the next few minutes should vote unanimously to 
proceed to take up this legislation. That is the way it should be done. 
Let's take it up, and then let the Senate work its will.

  I thank the two leaders for their cooperation in helping to bring 
this about and in providing a time and an opportunity when we can mull 
over and talk about and decide these great questions that confront us.
  I would have resisted going to the bill had the motion been made 
prior to the August recess. I would have resisted with all of my heart 
and all of my strength. But I do not resist going to the bill now. With 
the Senate in recess, we have had a month in which to read the House 
bill, which largely reflects the administration's position, to read 
also the legislation that has been reported from Senator Lieberman's 
and Senator Thompson's committee. And I have taken occasion to do just 
that.
  Now, when we proceed to take up the House bill, it will be done, and 
then, at some point, presumably early on, Senator Lieberman will offer 
his substitute. He will offer the committee of the committee which he 
chairs. And the Senate will then have both bills before it. The 
underlying measure will be the House bill. And then there will be the 
substitute, which will be a clean bill reported by Senator Lieberman's 
committee. So the Senate will have before it both bills. Senators may 
proceed to amend the underlying bill. They may proceed to amend Senator 
Lieberman's bill, the substitute. We will have both bills before us.
  I call to the attention of Senators that once we pass this bill, 
whatever the bill is that the Senate passes--I am not saying I am going 
to vote for it; I may--but whenever the Senate passes legislation 
dealing with the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, then 
that is the last time the Senate will visit the matter until the 
legislation comes back from the committee of conference. And that 
legislation will be in the form of a conference report, which cannot be 
amended. Senators will have to take that measure, then, up or down.
  So this is it. This is our chance, and our only chance, to fully 
discuss and amend the legislation. And I hope Senators will approach 
the matter in that vein, realizing that the product that emanates from 
this Senate, after whatever time we take to debate and vote on it, will 
be the final product the Senate itself will have had an opportunity to 
mold and to amend. That is it.
  We are going to have to live with that. I have been greatly concerned 
about the legislation, as I have read it, that the House has passed, 
and with particular reference to title VIII of that bill, which I will 
not go into now.
  But I have been greatly concerned. I am concerned that the 
Constitution and its principles and the rights and privileges that flow 
from that great document--which has no equal in the world as far as 
governmental, organic documents are concerned, no equal----
  I am concerned that those rights and prerogatives that flow from that 
document will have been impinged upon. I am greatly concerned about the 
constitutionality, in whole or in part, of some of the things that we 
are about to do--if we do them--that are particularly contained in the 
House bill.
  Now, we may pass legislation that is unconstitutional, and if it is 
never tried out in courts, it may be out there and there may not come 
an occasion where there is a case or controversy which goes to court. 
But I say that we have a responsibility.
  I used to hear Sam Ervin, that eminent jurist and great late Senator 
from North Carolina, say that we in the Senate have a duty to determine 
in our own minds the constitutionality of measures that we pass.
  That is why I joined with Senators on both sides of the aisle in 
bringing the line-item veto and pushing that matter to a decision by 
the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, we didn't have standing, as the 
Court determined, but we did proceed; but those who did have standing 
were pursuing it. Thank God, somebody pursued it, and I say thank God 
to the Supreme Court of the United States for throwing out that bad 
legislation. I said it was bad and the Court agreed.
  Here we are today with legislation that can certainly be dangerous in 
many ways. I have talked about some of those things, and I will have a 
further opportunity. But before I proceed with my final prepared 
remarks, let me thank Senator Thompson and Senator Lieberman. I thank 
Senator Thompson for his closing remarks today, and I also thank 
Senator Lieberman. These are gentlemen and I respect them as gentlemen. 
They have high and noble principles. That cannot be said of all men, of 
course.
  We are here today because nearly 11 months ago, 19 men commandeered 4 
aircraft. Their goal we know all too well. They crashed one aircraft 
into the Pentagon. One hurtled into the north tower of the World Trade 
Center. Another tore into the south tower a few minutes later. The men 
and women aboard the final plane, after learning of the fate of the 
others, decided to resist the hijackers. They knew that, in all 
likelihood, they were about to die. But they entered into the embrace 
of death willingly after having decided to do what they could do to 
prevent the untimely and abrupt death of other men and women.
  I have no doubt, as we were taken out of this Capitol that day, 
ushered out by the policemen here, that that last plane was coming to 
hit this Capitol or the White House--one or the other. I just know in 
my own mind that it was headed here. But those men and women on that 
plane died for us. Their plane crashed in rural Pennsylvania. If not 
for the heroic efforts of those men and women, we would have scores of 
additional names to remember as victims of the worse terrorist attack 
in the history of our country.
  We are here today debating because of those 19 hijackers. We are here 
because of the rescue workers who moved so quickly, so selflessly, so 
valiantly to save lives, only to lose their own while carrying out 
their duty. We are here because of those thousands of men and women 
who, on September 11, 1 year ago, were sitting at the desks, walking 
through the halls, doing their jobs, only to have such brutality bring 
to an end their precious lives, and so abruptly. They never had time to 
say good-bye to their loved ones. We are here, Senators, because we can 
never forget that day and because we never want this Nation to have to 
go through and experience the horrors of that day again.

[[Page S8075]]

  In many ways, the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security 
will serve as a legacy to those more than 3,000 men and women who had 
lost their lives on that clear fall day 1 year ago. We must not rush to 
create a department in the memory of those who lost their lives on 
September 11. If that Homeland Security Department does not better 
prevent another attack, what becomes of the sacrifice of those lives 
almost 1 year ago? If in the rush to create a new department we make 
Americans more vulnerable to attack while the transition is going 
forward rather than less, what kind of a legacy does that leave? What 
tribute does this Congress and this President pay to the victims of 
September 11 if we only tangle the lines of homeland security rather 
than straighten them and strengthen them?
  I believe that much is to be said in gratitude to Senator Lieberman 
and Senator Thompson and their committee for their efforts to 
straighten the lines. I honor and respect and pay tribute to these 
Senators and to the product which they have given this Senate and which 
we will soon be discussing. But having been in various and sundry 
legislative branches at the State and local levels and at the Federal 
level, I know there is no committee, including the one I chair, that 
can be perfect.
  As an experienced legislator, I look at this product in that fashion. 
It is a good product. It is a much better product than that which the 
House has sent us after 2 days of floor debate. But I think the full 
Senate can do better.
  I believe that if we act in haste to pass this legislation, then we 
pay no tribute, we honor, no memory.
  The legislation creates a new Department of Homeland Security. It is 
originally based on the plan of four men--not exactly the committee of 
five which wrote the Declaration of Independence. It is quite a 
different group. I don't say that disparagingly of the four fine men 
who came up with this idea in the bowels of the White House. But the 
legislation to create a new Department is based on the plan that 
originally was hatched in the subterranean caverns of the White House--
four men, fine men, sitting in the depths of the White House, trying to 
counter mounting political pressures. These four men have done nothing 
more, really, than shuffle boxes on a piece of paper.

  The administration calls this the largest reorganization of 
Government since World War II. I say it is the largest reorganization 
of Government since our constitutional Framers sat at the Convention in 
1787. They reorganized the Government under the Articles of 
Confederation. Under that Government, under the Articles of 
Confederation, the Congress was the legislative, the executive, and the 
judicial. So those men reorganized the Government and gave to the 
various States, to vote on in their ratifying conventions, this product 
that was signed by those men in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787.
  That was the first reorganization. That was the greatest 
reorganization because no longer do we operate under the Articles of 
Confederation but we operate under the Constitution of the United 
States. So now we have come to another reorganization proposal, the one 
we have been discussing.
  Terrorists have the advantage of knowing when they will strike, where 
they will strike, and how they will strike. Law-abiding men and women 
do not know when the terrorists will attack, where they will attack, or 
how they will attack. If the truth be told, there is no department that 
this Congress can conceive that alone can save Americans from terrorist 
attacks. Moving a few squares on a flowchart will not, on its own, save 
lives.
  I remain suspicious about a complex, extensive reorganization plan 
originally authored only by a group of four men in absolute secret, a 
plan which we are told was not revealed until the day the President 
revealed it, at which time several of the Department heads, whose 
Departments would be affected by the plan, had not been contacted and 
not been consulted. That is what I understand from reading the press. 
So I remain suspicious about a complex, extensive reorganization plan 
authored only by a group of four men in absolute secret. I believe such 
a plan is likely--likely--to be politically motivated somewhere along 
the line. There is an old fiddle tune I used to play, ``Somewhere Along 
the Line.''
  I hope that is not true. I hope the motivations were pure, but should 
we not all be a little suspicious of this process? Congress should be 
especially careful, given the way this plan was formulated. We ought to 
consider our actions thoroughly and realize that the steps we take in 
the next few weeks will have ramifications for decades to come.
  In the past few weeks, as the House select committee has held its 
hearings and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee has drafted its 
plan, the focus has not been on how to best save lives. Rather, the 
focus, in part at least, has been on the ``bureaucratic turf wars'' 
that have developed. Should Secret Service be in, or should Secret 
Service be out?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The time under the Senator's 
control has expired.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have need for a few more minutes. May I 
call upon the mercy of the distinguished Senator who chairs this 
committee, if he has time, if he would let this poor Senator from the 
hills of West Virginia have a few more minutes?

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator is moving me. I say to Senator Byrd, 
obviously I do not want to cut him off. I guess in return I ask for a 
certain amount of mercy because I hope to leave in an hour to attend an 
event at my daughter's school. The Senator may proceed as he will. I do 
not intend to use the rest of my time, and I hope Senator Byrd will 
finish with as much dispatch as he can and still make his points.
  Mr. REID. Will my friend from West Virginia yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I am wondering, with the three managers of the bill here on 
this phase of the debate, if we can agree on what time we are going to 
vote today. The time runs out at 6:37 p.m. It is my understanding that 
Senators Thompson and Lieberman will be willing to give back some of 
their time.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes, Senator Thompson has concluded his remarks. When 
Senator Byrd has finished, I will have concluding remarks that will go 
no longer than 5 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Is Senator Byrd going to speak for 10 minutes?
  Mr. BYRD. Well, let me put it this way. As far as I am concerned, we 
can vote now. As far as I am concerned, we can vote by voice. I intend 
to vote to proceed to take up this measure, but Senators have been told 
we would vote. I will stop editorializing on my own remarks and read 
what I have prepared and sit down.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Fine. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. REID. So the answer is we do not have a time certain.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. But no later than 6:36 p.m.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman, Senator 
Lieberman, for his generosity.
  What about the Secret Service, should it be in or out? What about the 
Coast Guard? Why is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms left 
out? While the 170,000 men and women targeted to move into this new 
Department try to figure out where the desks and telephones will be, 
the Nation's homeland defense system may be far less effective, not 
more.
  We in the Congress must insist on more information about the fine 
details, such as what this plan means for the separation of powers, why 
one agency was selected while others were left out. We must take time 
to determine if this approach is the best approach or if it is little 
more than cherry-picking the best agencies while leaving others behind.
  There will be those who charge that by moving to slow this 
legislation, I and others are endangering the lives of Americans and 
that we are thinking about our pet projects in our own States. What a 
sorry, empty claim to make. This Congress, at the urging of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee which I chair, has added $15 billion for 
homeland security over the course of the past 8 months. That funding 
has helped us to take immediate steps to make Americans safer from 
attack and to better prepare our response efforts should another attack 
occur.
  That funding paid for more than 2,200 agents and inspectors to guard 
our

[[Page S8076]]

long, porous borders with Canada and Mexico. The foreign student visa 
program, which has been identified as one of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service's chief loopholes, is undergoing a tighter 
tracking system because of funding that Congress included in its first 
homeland security funding package within 3 days after the tragedy 
occurred in New York City.
  Across this country, local police officers, firefighters, and 
emergency medical teams are receiving new training and equipment to 
handle threats that before last fall they hardly considered possible. 
Federal law enforcement also benefited from the work of this Congress. 
Because of the funding initiated by the Appropriations Committee, the 
FBI started to hire hundreds of new agents. More than 300 additional 
protective personnel were hired to protect the Nation's nuclear weapons 
complex. Air marshals have been hired to protect our planes. Seven 
hundred and fifty food inspectors were hired to ensure the safety of 
the meals served at America's kitchen tables. We have paid for smallpox 
vaccines and health department training. We are tightening security at 
our seaports and purchasing new bomb-detecting equipment at our 
airports. We are taking steps to protect American lives now, today, and 
not just waiting for a bureaucratic shuffle to protect us.
  Congress, the elected representatives of the people, have done this. 
Congress also acted to provide additional emergency funding to 
strengthen terrorism prevention and to give much-needed aid to first 
responders at the local level. But President Bush has refused to spend 
some of these critical funds because he and OMB Director Mitch Daniels 
want to make a point about budget discipline.
  If the President is really serious about preventing terror, as he 
says he is, he should not play politics with this important funding, 
which by the signature of his name could have been released to the 
people at the local levels, throughout the land, for the protection of 
the people and the protection of the infrastructure of our country.
  Members of Congress and the President would like to be able to tell 
the public that they honored the victims of September 11 by creating a 
new Department for Homeland Security on the anniversary of the tragedy. 
That is understandable for politicians. But as Senator Thompson pointed 
out, we want the right product. We want to take the time and do the job 
right.
  In a few days, Americans will pause to remember the moment when the 
airplanes struck the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the 
Pennsylvania field. We will remember the mothers and fathers, the 
brothers and sisters, the firefighters, the police officers, the 
ambulance drivers. We will remember all of those who lost their lives 
in those tragic moments. But as we craft this legacy to their lives, we 
owe them more than a press release. We owe them our best judgment. We 
owe them rational, responsible action. We owe them a legacy that may 
truly save other lives, the lives of the people and the families of 
those who died, the progeny of those fathers whose lives were wiped out 
in the batting of an eye.
  Based on what we know about the legislative proposals before us, 
there can be no assurance that such a legacy will ever result. I am 
concerned that the monument that will result from this effort may be 
one of weakened protections for America's civil servants, one that may 
allow the security that is our goal to buckle under the weight of an 
administration's untold agenda. What will this legislation do to the 
people's rights, to the first amendment, to the second amendment, the 
third or fourth? Do we know what this bill does to the fundamental 
protections embodied in the Constitution?
  I am concerned about what we do not know about what has been kept 
from us by an administration adept at dealing in the shadows. I am 
concerned that this bill goes too far to protect the privacy of the 
White House and not far enough to protect the privacy of law-abiding 
citizens outside the White House.

  We are being pressed to pass this legislation to protect American 
lives, but we must not allow ourselves to be blinded to the new threats 
it may present to our laws and our constitutional system if we pass the 
legislation for which the administration has asked.
  Each of us has an obligation not just to put a new banner over a 
collection of agencies but to ensure that those agencies work together 
to protect the American people. Reorganizations of any size have a 
tendency to drift, to veer off course. A reorganization of the 
magnitude envisioned is likely to careen out of our control if we do 
not take the necessary steps to keep it on track. We cannot throw up 
our arms in celebration at the moment a bill is signed into law and 
walk away wrapped in the folds of glory. If that is all we do, we will 
surely drop the reins.
  This Senate must do everything within its power now to ensure that 
the promise embodied in this proposed reorganization is kept. We must 
focus beyond the mere creation of a new Department and grapple with the 
details of its implementation. We should insist on a clear 
understanding of the mission of the new Department. We should know the 
criteria that are used to determine which agencies will be part of it. 
We should insist that the constitutional rights of the people are 
protected. We should insist on assurances that this administration will 
not use this reorganization as a cover to dismantle worker protections. 
We should insist that the important non-homeland-security work of the 
transferred agencies is not sacrificed as those agencies assume new 
missions.
  Senators know of my great respect and fondness for history of the 
ancient Romans. Montesquieu first pointed the way, and having read a 
great deal of Montesquieu's work, I came to the conclusion that 
Montesquieu must have been right because he loved the history of the 
ancient Romans. As a matter of fact, he wrote a history of the ancient 
Romans. So I decided I would do some of that reading, too.
  I close with a quotation. Gaius Petronius Arbiter, a Roman poet and 
advisor to Nero, is reported to have said:

       We trained hard . . . but it seemed that every time we were 
     beginning to form into teams we would be reorganized. I was 
     to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation 
     by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for 
     creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, 
     inefficiency and demoralization.

  What a quotation from a Roman 2,000 years ago, and more. Before we 
rush ahead with so many questions unanswered, let us ensure that the 
product of our work is not just an illusion but substance. If it is a 
monument we are building, let it be one that will endure.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I simply thank the very able Senator 
from West Virginia for once again calling on the Senate to face these 
very fundamental questions that are involved and which he has been 
speaking to in the course of the day. I think it behooves all of our 
colleagues not only to have listened to the able Senator but to go back 
and read his remarks and to consider them carefully and thoughtfully as 
we address this major legislation.
  Now we are embarked, of course, on creating a new Department, but we 
need to be very careful in how we do it. We need to be very thorough in 
how we do it. We need to be very thoughtful in how we do it.
  I commend the chairman of the committee, the able Senator from 
Connecticut, because I think he has brought all of those qualities to 
this legislation that he has now brought forth in the Senate.
  There are very important questions involved here in terms of how the 
political system works and how the checks and balances work and what 
the allocation of powers is. Some say this is a fight over turf or over 
prerogatives. It is no such thing. This is trying to resolve the most 
basic questions about how our system of self-government is to work and 
what the balance is to be between the legislative and the executive 
branches; indeed, the judicial branch is drawn into this, as well.
  I hope as we address this legislation in the days to come, my 
colleagues keep in mind the analysis and the history which the Senator 
from West Virginia has brought to the floor today. I express my deep 
appreciation once again. He reminds us of the fundamental questions we 
confront and of the importance of rising to this occasion.

[[Page S8077]]

  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for the generous remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I agree with my friend from Maryland: The Senator from 
West Virginia has made a contribution here with his thoughtful 
leadership over the years, of course, and his thoughtful statements 
today. Even when I do not meet the statements with personal agreement, 
I know he forces me to think about fixed premises that I may bring to 
the debate, as well as everyone in this case, and that will make the 
product of our deliberations better than it would otherwise be.
  I was thinking about the quote at the end of Senator Byrd's remarks. 
It is true that reorganization or reform can sometimes not be in the 
interest of progress and can be a cover for disorganization and an 
excuse for inaction more broadly.
  I do want to argue that this proposal that has come out of the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee, which builds on work that had been done 
by the Hart-Rudman Commission, which meshed with recommendations from 
the White House, is a necessary reorganization.
  The current state of reality in our Federal Government is that we are 
disorganized. It is in some ways dysfunctional as it comes to 
protecting the security of the American people from a threat we have 
imagined, we have seen some small evidence of over the years. But on 
September 11 we were shocked from our lethargy and our apathy and our 
tolerance of disorganization, seeing the painful personal consequences 
of that disorganization--almost 3,000 Americans dead only because they 
were Americans, struck in a vicious and savage and cunning way only 
because they were Americans. They did not have the courage to take us 
on on a conventional field of battle but struck an undefended target 
full of innocent Americans.
  That disorganization can no longer be tolerated. I have a sense of 
urgency about this. I look at the evidence we have accumulated about 
the various ways in which our intelligence and law enforcement 
personnel could have cooperated, could have shared information prior to 
September 11. I wonder, could we have prevented this from happening? I 
look at the way in which we have tolerated disorganization and overlap 
at our borders with failures of the various Federal agencies there and 
inability even to communicate with one another. I look at our ports, 
with 95 percent of the goods coming into the United States of America. 
Most people are shocked by this number: 95 percent come in by ship, yet 
the Customs Service is able to truly inspect only 1 percent of the 
containers coming in.
  I could go on and on about airport security pre-September 11 and 
security of our financial systems, cybersystems, and all the rest. We 
are just not organized to prevent what happened on September 11 from 
ever happening again.
  In this regard, I have the echo in my mind of a meeting I attended 
some months ago with families of victims of September 11, mostly 
families of victims because most of them were from Connecticut, some 
from New York, who died in the World Trade Center. The plaintive 
question they asked me was, how could this have happened? I do not want 
to ever be in a position to face another group of fellow Americans who 
ask me again, how could this have happened?
  I make no claims that adoption of the bill that our committee has 
reported on will be a guarantee against terrorism. I suppose if someone 
has so little regard for their own life and other lives that they are 
prepared to strap bombs around themselves and walk into a crowd, that 
is not easy to stop. But something as well planned, as comprehensive, 
with as many contacts with private sector bodies, including flight 
training schools and public agencies, we should be able to prevent. The 
only way to begin to do it is to create a structure that is 
accountable, that has a uniform chain of command, and that will put 
people in place to overcome the gaps the terrorists took advantage of 
on September 11.

  That is why I have urgently brought this matter to the floor, with 
the wonderful bipartisan group of members of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee who contributed substantially to the product on the floor, 
and the various Members of the Senate on both sides with whom we have 
worked on parts of this proposal. There were 18 hearings, 3 or 4 days 
of committee meetings and markup. A lot of work has been done on this, 
building on work that had been done years before by others, as to how 
we can best protect the American people from terrorism.
  It is time to proceed. We have had a very good opening day of debate. 
Obviously, there are some differences of opinion regarding the pace of 
action in Congress or whether the executive branch is seeking or being 
given too much authority, whether one or another agency that is 
consolidated by this bill should be consolidated, how strong our 
intelligence division should be in this Department, how much should we 
bring matters together. Should we give this President and his 
successors unprecedented authority over civil service and Federal 
employees?
  All of these matters, I know, will be directly discussed in the days 
ahead. And many of them, if not all of them, will be subjects of 
amendment before this Chamber. This is a big bill. It is a big proposal 
which responds to an urgent problem. As others have said, it would be 
the largest reorganization of the Federal Government in 50 years, since 
the post-World War II reorganization of our national security 
apparatus. That is what the reality of our times requires. It is why we 
need the debate we will have in the days, and perhaps weeks, ahead.
  In the paper today, there is a story that our intelligence service is 
working with foreign intelligence services and has tracked the movement 
of gold, substantial amounts of gold, apparently owned by al-Qaida, 
from Pakistan through Iran, the United Arab Emirates, into Sudan, where 
it may be in Khartoum now. What does this tell us? That the enemy is 
out there, that we won a victory, a great victory, in Afghanistan, but 
that was only the first battle of the war.
  Again, the enemy is not out there on a field of battle where we can 
see them, or in ships at sea. They are in the shadows. They have not 
diminished their intention to strike at America, and Americans only, 
because we are America and Americans. Now we, as the representatives of 
the American people here in Congress, we draw ourselves together, to 
have our debate, have our discussion, but in the end, to do what we 
must do to create a Department of Homeland Security that will be a 
strong line of defense against al-Qaida and anyone else out there 
intending to strike at the American people here at home.
  One thing I do know, in the midst of all the debate, is we are ready 
to proceed. We have had a good opening day. Many more days of debate 
will come. But on the specific motion before us now, the motion to 
proceed, I am sure we are ready to vote.
  I yield whatever remaining time I have and I ask for the yeas and 
nays on the motion to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), and 
the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), are necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), the Senator from Arkansas 
(Mr. Murkowski), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 209 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley

[[Page S8078]]


     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Akaka
     Biden
     Gramm
     Helms
     Murkowski
     Santorum
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________