[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 117 (Tuesday, September 17, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8652-S8656]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will be brief. The President again
today admonished the Senate for moving slowly on homeland security. He
again told his audience that he was very concerned that we are moving
slowly on an issue of great import in terms of his design on homeland
security and the need for a recognition of national security through
this legislation.
Let me simply say to the President and to anybody else who has
question: There is no desire to slow down this legislation. There are
Senators who have very significant concerns about various provisions,
but there ought to be no question about our desire to continue to work
to complete the deliberation of this legislation and send it to
conference as quickly as possible.
We have only had an opportunity to debate one amendment and bring it
to closure. It would be my hope we could take up Senator Byrd's
amendment sometime very soon and we could take up other amendments to
the legislation as soon as possible. We have now been on this bill for
3 weeks, and I understand why some would be concerned about the pace
with which the Senate is dealing with this legislation.
I discussed the matter with Senator Lott, and I think he shares my
view that we have to move the bill along. I note that if the President
had supported homeland security legislation when the Democrats first
offered it last summer, we probably would have completed it by now. It
took them about 2 months to respond to the actions taken by the
Governmental Affairs Committee in the Senate. But that has been done.
They have responded, and we have worked with them to come up with a
plan of which we are very proud and a product that can be addressed.
Senator Byrd has a good amendment. There are others who have
amendments as well, but the time has come to move on. I had originally
hoped we could get an agreement that only relevant amendments would be
offered. We have not had a case of nonrelevant amendments. We have had
a case of no amendments in this process. It is very important for us to
demonstrate to the American people, it is very important for us to make
as clear as we can that we want to come to closure on this
legislation--take up amendments and deal with them effectively, but the
amendments ought to be germane and we ought to work within a timeframe.
Cloture Motion
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, with respect to the Lieberman
substitute amendment to the homeland security bill, I send a cloture
motion to the desk.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask the leader if he will add my name to
that cloture motion.
Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to add the Senator's name.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I give the distinguished majority leader
my power of attorney to sign this for me. Everybody in the country
knows about my trembling hands. So I hope the majority will sign this
for me.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I have
that right, and we will accommodate the Senator's request. I appreciate
very much his support of the cloture motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair
directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Lieberman
substitute amendment No. 4471 for H.R. 5005, Homeland
Security legislation.
Jean Carnahan, Herb Kohl, Jack Reed (RI), Richard J.
Durbin, Kent Conrad, Paul Wellstone, Jim Jeffords, Max
Baucus, Tom Harkin, Harry Reid (NV), Patrick Leahy,
Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Byron L. Dorgan, Mark
Dayton, Debbie Stabenow, Robert Torricelli, Mary
Landrieu, Joseph Lieberman, Robert C. Byrd.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we now have two cloture motions before
the Senate. The first one ripens this afternoon at 5:15. That is on the
amendment offered by Senator Byrd to the Interior appropriations bill.
We cannot get to the rest of the business before us unless that
cloture motion is agreed to. There can be no excuse, there can be no
reason, after all this debate, after all the meetings, that we cannot
at least bring closure to that amendment.
Senators still have a right to offer amendments to the bill, but we
have to move on. I cannot imagine that there would be a Senator who
would want to extend debate beyond the 3 weeks we have now debated
Interior and the Byrd amendment. The same could be said of homeland
security. If we want to respond to the President, who again today said
the time for the Senate to act is now, let's respond on a bipartisan
basis and let's vote for cloture on the Lieberman substitute and let's
move this legislation along.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment
briefly about the upcoming cloture vote and also about the status of
our progress on the homeland security bill and the progress of the
Senate on its fundamental responsibility to have a budget or make
appropriations.
I would have thought that on September 17, the day the Constitution
was ratified, there would be more regard for the constitutional
responsibility of the Senate. We have the power of appropriation, but
we are not handling our duties. Much as I dislike saying so, I believe
the Senate is dysfunctional. Harsh, perhaps, but true, certainly. We
are simply not getting the job done.
I am a little surprised to see a cloture motion filed on an amendment
to an appropriations bill. If there were protracted debate, if there
were an effort to stall, if there were some attempt made to delay the
proceedings of
[[Page S8653]]
the Senate, perhaps so. But there are Senators who want to vote on an
important issue relating to the forests, especially in the West, and
the dangers of fire. They have been seeking a vote but have not been
able to get one.
I intend to vote against cloture, to give Senators a chance to
present their amendment. That is not to say I will support the
amendment, but I believe the Senators ought to have an opportunity to
present their amendment.
Cloture has now been filed on the homeland security bill. We are now
in our third week after returning from the August recess, and the
Senate has done virtually nothing during that period of time. We have
had prolonged speeches on generalizations which have, in fact, impeded
the progress of the homeland security bill. We were in a position to
vote on the amendment by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut
last Thursday, but it could not get a vote because the time was
consumed with speechmaking. Now, I like speechmaking as much as the
next Senator, but there has to be some balance as to what is being
done. And again this afternoon--I had not known unanimous consent was
granted--more lengthy speeches, without really getting to the substance
of what the Senate ought to be doing.
We have not passed any appropriations bill among the 13 we are
charged with passing. Now, this is September 17, 13 days away from the
end of the fiscal year, with only a few working days left. The
Department of Defense appropriations bill lies dormant. It has been
passed by both bodies, but there hasn't been a conference. The military
construction appropriations bill lies dormant. Again, it has been
passed by both bodies but there hasn't been a conference.
We are fighting a war at the present time. We are cleaning up the
remnants of other wars, in Kosovo and in Bosnia, and our troops are in
Afghanistan. We will be called upon soon to vote on a resolution which
may send us to war against Iraq.
Now, what are we doing for the Department of Defense? We have a very
substantial increase in defense funding, but the way it looks now, we
are going to be having a continuing resolution. What the House has said
ought to be adopted and what the Senate has said ought to be adopted
will be curtailed very drastically if we have a continuing resolution.
So we are simply not doing our job.
Then we have 11 other appropriations bills. I have the
responsibility, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, to prepare a very major bill which
funds the Department of Education, the major capital investment of
America, the Department of Health and Human Services, which is very
important, and the Department of Labor on worker safety. But we are not
moving to pass the bill.
The National Institutes of Health, probably the best investment this
Congress makes, the crown jewel of the Federal Government--perhaps the
only jewel of the Federal Government--has an increase of $3.5 billion
in this year's appropriations bill. But as of this reading, it is
unlikely to comment on its operation because we are not going to pass
the bill.
We are told that the Department of Defense appropriations bill is
being held up because we have not established the allocations. Why
haven't we established allocations? We haven't established allocations
because there is no budget. The Budget Act was passed in 1974, and this
is the first year there hasn't been a budget passed.
As I am approaching the end of my 22nd year in this body, not an
inconsiderable period of time, I have not seen the Senate in such
disarray as we are at the present time.
We had a vote several weeks ago on what was the equivalent of
deeming. That is legal jargon, Senate jargon, for making out as if we
had passed a budget to establish a figure. It required 60 votes to have
this amendment passed--I was sorely tempted to vote for it--which would
have established the Senate budget $9 billion above the House budget. I
do believe we need a budget, because if we do not, we are going to be
passing appropriations bills which far exceed the purported
allocations.
It is customary, on the attractive education proposals and the
attractive health proposals, to get into the high fifties. With a 60-
vote requirement, those amendments are not passed, but they are very
tempting amendments. When I responded to the rollcall, with 59 Senators
having voted aye on the deeming resolution, I just was not going to do
it, notwithstanding my deep commitment to the appropriations process
and notwithstanding my knowledge that it was fairly important to have a
budget figure.
But if we are going to use a shortcut, if we are going to use a
substitute, what is the point of having a budget resolution? If the
Budget Committee knows it can be derelict in its duty and be bailed out
by 60 Senators who will say, awe, shucks, let's go ahead and do it
anyway, what is the point to have the Budget Committee do its job next
year or any year?
The previous chairman of the Budget Committee told me--the
distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico is sitting in front of
me--that he will be chairman next year. If I was sure of that, I would
have voted for deeming. But I am not sure of much of anything on the
current posture.
So it is my hope that we will move ahead and have votes and let there
be a vote on this issue on the course. But let us proceed to vote on
the homeland security issues which are very important.
One of the critical issues on homeland security, in my judgment, is
to have the analysis of all the agencies--FBI, CIA, NSA--under one
umbrella.
Had that been done prior to September 11, 2001, I think that
catastrophe might have been avoided. There were lots of danger signals.
There were lots of dots on the board.
There was the July FBI Phoenix memorandum about a man taking flight
training and two al-Qaida men in Kuala Lumpur, known to the CIA, who
later turned out to be pilots on the hijacked planes. The CIA didn't
bother to tell the FBI or INS.
You had the NSA warning on September 10 that something was going to
happen the next day. But nobody bothered to translate it until
September 12.
Then you had the matter of Zacarias Moussaoui, a much celebrated
personality today with the litigation in the Federal court. But had the
FBI obtained a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
there was a treasure trove of information linking Moussaoui to al-
Qaida. And there was a virtual blueprint, had all the dots been put
together.
After September 11, I opposed the creation of an independent
commission because it seemed to me the Intelligence Committees could do
the job. I understood that they couldn't move ahead immediately with
hearings in closed session and then in open session in order to give
the intelligence community an opportunity to regroup. But that time has
long passed, and now we find the Intelligence Committees are embroiled
in another investigation; that is, an investigation by the FBI against
the Intelligence Committees.
It is very difficult to understand how the Intelligence Committees
can be investigating the FBI and the CIA and other intelligence
agencies, and then, having a leak of classified material, to have the
FBI investigate the intelligence committees. I wrote to the chairmen
and vice chairmen of both the House and Senate, strongly urging them
not to do that--that you simply can't have investigators being
investigated by those who are under investigation.
Then you have the issue of separation of powers. If the FBI is going
to be able to investigate the Congress, what independence does the
Congress have in our oversight function?
So the Intelligence Committees have not moved ahead for that job. The
only alternative now is an independent commission. I worked as one of
the younger lawyers on the Warren Commission staff many years ago. I
say ``younger lawyer'' because I am still a young lawyer. And, while
the Warren Commission has received a fair amount of critical analysis
over the years, the essential conclusions have held up--that Oswald was
the sole assassin, or the single bullet that went through both the
President and Governor Connolly and the President was struck by a later
bullet which killed him. So I have now come to conclude that we need an
independent commission.
But most of all we need a Senate which will move ahead in its duties
and obligations. This is a good day, September 17. September 17, 1787,
was the
[[Page S8654]]
day the Constitution was signed. So, 215 years later, that ought to be
a hallmark for us to move ahead and discharge our duties.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I was en route here and was watching
and saw the Senator from Pennsylvania speaking. I got here as fast as I
could because I was wondering when somebody would say what he has said.
Frankly, I am sorry the distinguished President pro tempore is not
here, or I would ask him the same question: When do we intend? When
would he let us vote on this very important, new Cabinet position and
the Cabinet organization that goes with it?
I heard much of what he wants to say. I know he wants to win. But I
believe it is important that when we are at war, we proceed with some
dispatch to give the President what he wants. If the distinguished
Senator is going to lose, we all lose sometimes. If he is going to win,
maybe he will win sooner than he thinks. But it is taking a long time
and getting nowhere. And I think we know the issues on that new piece,
that new Department of our Federal Government. I think he ought to let
us proceed with it.
My further observation has to do with appropriations. You know, we
are all tied in knots because we didn't get a budget resolution, and
every time we say it, somebody should be here on our side of the aisle
because it is not our fault. It is not me as ranking member. It is not
my fault. And it is not my fault in any other capacity. I have been on
that committee for 25 years, and never did I not get a budget
resolution when I was chairman. One way or another, we got a budget
resolution.
Now we don't know which appropriations numbers to follow, the bigger
number in the House or the Senate or vice versa. At least that much
would be resolved with a budget resolution. I hope we learn from it and
we get on to our business today.
Mr. SARBANES. Madam, President, my amendment, No. 4554, would
establish an Office of National Capital Region Coordination within a
newly-created Department of Homeland Security. Joining me in offering
this amendment are Senators Warner, Mikulski, and Allen.
The September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the Pentagon underscored
the unique challenges the National Capital Region faces in emergency
preparedness. A recent editorial in the Washington Post perhaps
described the problem best:
Sept. 11 laid bare the truth about the national capital
region's preparedness for a major terrorist attack. That
fateful day revealed that the area's 5 million residents, the
federal government's far-flung operations and the varied
state and local jurisdictions were ill-prepared for the kind
of emergencies that could result from bioterrorism or other
murderous terrorist strikes . . . . It will be no easy feat,
converting a region containing three branches of the federal
government, two states, and the District of Columbia, each
with separate police forces and emergency plans--but all
using the same roads and bridges--into a well-coordinated
governmental operating complex . . .
In no other area of the country must vital decisionmaking and
coordination occur between an independent city, two States, seventeen
distinct local and regional authorities, including more than a dozen
local police and Federal protective forces, and numerous Federal
agencies.
In hearings before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia, Senator Mary Landrieu, the Distinguished Chair of
the Subcommittee, and virtually every witness highlighted the region's
high risk for terrorism and the critical need for coordinated and
timely communication between the Federal Government and the surrounding
State and local jurisdictions. I want to commend Senator Landrieu for
her leadership on this very important issue and for working to address
the emergency preparedness funding needs of the District of Columbia
and the Washington Metro system.
Over the past year significant progress has been made on the State
and local levels in emergency response protocols. The Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments, COG, the association representing
the 17 major cities and counties in the region, should be commended for
the strong partnerships and initiatives they have nurtured over the
past twelve months, including the creation of the COG Ad Hoc Task Force
on Homeland Security and the development of a Regional Emergency
Response Plan.
Similarly, at a summit meeting convened last month, the mayor of the
District of Columbia and the Governors of Maryland and Virginia took a
major step forward with the signing of an eight-point ``Commitments to
Action'' to improve coordination. Unfortunately, the Office of Homeland
Security, which helped convene the summit, is not a party to the
agreement.
What is still lacking, however, is the integration of the Federal
Government's many and diverse protocols in the region with those of
State and local authorities. This past August, a plan known as the
Federal Emergency Decision and Notification Protocol was announced by
the Administration, giving the directors of the Office of Personnel
Management, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the General
Services Administration the authority to release Federal employees in
the area and around the country. However, as an August 17, 2002 article
in the Washington Post notes, ``[left unclear by the plan is how
Federal agencies execute the evacuation. Congress and the courts are
independent of the President. Even Cabinet secretaries and senior
agency directors have autonomy over their employees and buildings . . .
.''
I commend to my colleagues the September 10, 2002 edition of the
Washington Post which featured a story detailing the status of
emergency planning in the area, noting the work yet to be done by the
Federal Government.
The unique and dominant Federal presence in this region obligates the
Federal Government to become a fully cooperative partner in the
region's efforts at emergency planning and preparedness.
One of the key goals of a new Department of Homeland Security is to
consolidate the components of the Federal Government playing an
integral role in the protection of the homeland, both existing and yet-
to-be-created, into one single entity whose purpose is to coordinate
these components and facilitate their individual missions.
In the National Capital Region, the many branches and agencies of the
Federal Government similarly necessitate a single voice to aid and
encourage the significant efforts already being undertaken by State,
local, and regional authorities. It is with this goal in mind that my
amendment proposes the creation of an office within a Department of
Homeland Security that would provide such a voice.
The Office of National Capital Region Coordination would establish a
single Federal point of contact within a new Department of Homeland
Security. This office would not only coordinate the activities of the
Department affecting the Nation's Capital, but also act as a one-stop
shop through which State, local, and regional authorities can look for
meaningful access to the plans and preparedness activities of the
numerous other Federal agencies and entities in the region. Likewise,
this new office would become the vehicle used by the multitude of
Federal entities in the area to receive vital information and input
from the state, local, and regional level in the development of the
Federal Government's planning efforts.
In short, the Office of National Capital Region Coordination would
ensure that the Federal Government takes a place at the table as this
region makes unprecedented attempts to coordinate the work of its many
State, local, and regional authorities.
The need for such an office has been expressed and supported by many
of the most important participants and stakeholders in the area's
terrorism preparedness activities, including COG, WMATA, the Greater
Washington Board of Trade, and the Potomac Electric Power Company,
PEPCO. I ask that letters of support from these groups be printed in
the Record immediately following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. SARBANES. A year has passed since the horrific attacks of
September 11th, and as we debate the shape and form of a new Department
of Homeland Security, the time has come for the Federal Government to
fulfill its obligations to the National Capital Region
[[Page S8655]]
and those dedicated to preserving its safety. I would urge my
colleagues to support this important amendment.
Pepco Holdings, Inc.,
Washington, DC, September 10, 2002.
Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Government Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Lieberman: As Chief Executive Officer of
Pepco Holdings Inc., I am writing to express my strong and
unequivocal support for Senator Paul Sarbanes' amendment to
the National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act of
2002.
The proposed amendment would create within the Department
of Homeland Security a National Capital Region Coordination
Office. This office would have the responsibility of
coordinating the response activities of the Federal, State,
and local governments with that of the general public and the
private sector.
The District of Columbia is truly in a unique situation
when it comes to Homeland Security. As our Nation's Capital,
the District is home to more than 370,000 Federal workers and
draws over 18 million visitors annually. At the same time,
given the multi-jurisdictional nature of the Greater
Washington Metropolitan area and the enormous Federal
presence, there are distinct challenges facing this region's
efforts to have a comprehensive and coordinated response to
terrorism.
For example, there are over a dozen separate local police
departments in the greater Washington area. Overlaying this,
there are another dozen Federal law enforcement agencies,
each with their own jurisdiction and mandate. These
departments have their own procedures and are developing
their own contingency plans. Coordinating these efforts will
not be an easy task and will require a dedicated office
within the Department of Homeland Security.
Unfortunately on September 11 we saw what can happen if the
region fails to coordinate its response. On the afternoon of
the attack the Federal government sent home its entire
workforce early without notifying anyone on the local level.
At the same time the Federal government was releasing
hundreds of thousands of Federal employees and contractors to
already grid-locked roads and packed Metro stations, Federal
agencies were erecting security zones and blocking off
streets around their facilities making the evacuation of the
District even more difficult.
Thankfully, there was no secondary attack after the
Pentagon. But had there been one, this lack of coordination
could have had disastrous results and I believe illustrated
the need for a dedicated office within the Department.
As the major provider of electricity to the District of
Columbia as well as Prince George's and Montgomery counties
in Maryland, Pepco has spent a significant amount of time and
effort on security issues since September 11. The more I look
at the unique challenges we face in this new environment,
both as Chief Executive and a Washingtonian, the more I
believe in the need for Senator Sarbanes' proposal.
Thank you for your leadership on homeland security issues,
and I trust that you will give the National Capital Region
Coordination Office provision every consideration.
Sincerely,
John M. Derrick,
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer.
____
Washington Area Transit Authority,
Washington, DC, September 5, 2002.
Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Lieberman: On behalf of the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, I would like to express
our great appreciation and strong support for your efforts to
enhance security in the national capital region. We urge you
to offer an amendment to S. 2452, the ``National Homeland
Security and Combating Terrorism Act of 2002'' in order to
address the specific needs of the National Capital Region,
perhaps the area of greatest potential risk in the country.
Importantly, there is not central point of coordination for
the many Federal entities in the region, including various
executive branch agencies, the Office of Homeland Security,
the Military District of Washington, the U.S. Congress, and
the judicial branch. Effective coordination within the
Federal government is absolutely critical in the National
Capital Region in light of the fact that the Federal
government is the region's largest employer. The recent
Regional Summit on Security, convened by Governor Ridge, also
pointed out the continuing need for effective coordination
among all levels of government in the National Capital
Region.
The other matter of concern is the enormous challenge this
region faces in working constructively with the
Administration as it formulates security budget proposals.
While the Congress, through the appropriations process, has
generally been quite receptive to funding requirements for
security measures, it has been extremely difficult and
cumbersome to present our case to the Administration for the
resources needed to carry out the national strategy for
combating terrorism and other homeland security activities,
due to the highly decentralized nature of the Executive
Branch budget development process. The proposed amendment
provides a mechanism for a review of the funding resources
required for the region to implement the national strategy
for combating terrorism.
We greatly appreciate your attention and diligence in
assisting the region in addressing these important issues. We
are all facing challenges that previously seemed unthinkable.
We owe you a great debt of gratitude for your leadership in
assisting the National Capital Region in preparing to meet
these challenges.
Sincerely,
Christopher Zimmerman,
Chairman, Board of Directors.
____
Greater Washington Board of Trade,
Washington, DC, August 23, 2002.
Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Government Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Lieberman: Thank you for your leadership on
building a strong and thoughtful Department of Homeland
Security. As you prepare your final mark on S. 2452 we urge
you to include an amendment that calls for a separate office
for the National Capital Region within the Department. The
proposal is supported by many of your colleagues including
Senators Warner, Allen, Sarbanes and Mikulski, as well as
Senator Landrieu, ranking member of the District of Columbia
Appropriations Subcommittee and Mayor Anthony Williams.
The National Capital Region is perhaps the area of greatest
potential risk in the country to future terrorist attack. It
is the seat of government, the location of many symbolic and
historic structures, the venue for many high profile public
events attended by large numbers of people, a key tourism
destination that draws 18 million visitors annually and home
to 370,000 federal workers and hundreds of lawmakers.
The area is unique in that it has dozens of federal
agencies that have been mandated to have their own emergency
preparedness plans. Most of these agencies have not
coordinated their plans with local governments or private
sector concerns that own and operate critical infrastructure
like power, telecommunications and transportation, which the
agencies are dependent. The region also has more than a dozen
separate and distinct police forces representing seventeen
jurisdictions and more than a dozen federal protective forces
that need better coordination.
S. 2452 does not currently require the federal government
to coordinate with the region or intradepartmentally, leaving
the region and the nation's capital vulnerable. While
coordination efforts are improving, there clearly needs to be
an institutional structure in place to bring coordination to
the level necessary in this complex environment.
We urge you to support the amendment to S. 2452 that will
create a single point of contract within the Department of
Homeland Security for coordination in the National Capital
Region. The purpose is not to supercede any planning or
action currently being undertaken, but only to serve as a
coordinator of information, a point of contact for planning
with the regional public and private sectors.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Peck,
President.
____
Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments,
Washington, DC, August 22, 2002.
Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Government Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Lieberman: The Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments (COG) is appreciative of your efforts
in strengthening the provisions of S. 2452, the National
Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act of 2002, as it
impacts the National Capital Region. In particular we endorse
your efforts in insuring that federal terrorism preparedness
and emergency response activities in the Washington, DC area
are coordinated in consultation with those of the Region's
sub-federal governments, private and non-profit entities, and
the public generally.
As you are aware, COG is completing a year-long effort
involving hundreds of public officials and public and private
experts in the development of coordination and communications
protocols for use by state and local governments, private and
non-profit agencies, and other ``stakeholders'' concerned
about preparation for and management of terrorist and other
emergencies in the National Capital Region. Having a single
contact point for coordinating these efforts with existing
and proposed Federal response capacities is necessary for the
effective and timely protection of life and property in the
region.
The proposed amendment creates a function within the
Department of Homeland Security which will be such a contact
point, allowing full communication among the Federal and sub-
federal entities dedicated to protection of this region and
its citizens and coordination of their potentially supportive
but disparate functions without impeding the planning or
actions of either group.
Additionally, the creation of such a function recognizes
the unique status of this region, with its strong presence of
the Federal government as employer, policy-initiator, and
potential target, as worthy of specific future Federal
support.
The COG Ad Hoc Task Force on Homeland Security has
considered the concepts and purposes contained in this
proposed amendment and supports its enactment.
On behalf of my colleagues on the Task Force, I am pleased
to endorse this proposed
[[Page S8656]]
amendment and urge you to support its passage.
Sincerely,
Carol Schwartz,
Chairman.
____________________