[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 24, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9056-S9065]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 5005, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5005) to establish the Department of Homeland 
     Security, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Lieberman amendment No. 4471, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Byrd amendment No. 4644 (to amendment No. 4471), to provide 
     for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, 
     and an orderly transfer of functions to the Directorates of 
     the Department.
       Lieberman/McCain amendment No. 4694 (to amendment No. 
     4471), to establish the National Commission on Terrorist 
     Attacks Upon the United States.


                           Amendment No. 4644

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. There are several speakers who will support my amendment, 
and each speaker has been allotted 5 minutes.
  Will the Chair kindly remind each speaker when 4 minutes of the 5 
have elapsed?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will do so.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, thank you very much.
  I am pleased to be here to support the amendment offered by my 
colleague, the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd. This is a very 
important subject, the subject of homeland security. In some areas, if 
we make a mistake in the United States Congress, we waste money or some 
other inconvenience occurs or something important happens. But this is 
a case where if we make a mistake, the safety of the American people is 
at stake. So homeland security is critically important.
  I have watched with great interest Senator Byrd's presentation of his 
amendment. Let me say this about my colleague from West Virginia. Much 
has been said about him. Let me say today that I think he is old-
fashioned. That is right, I think he is old-fashioned. I think he 
brings to the floor, with this amendment, the values and virtues of 
being old-fashioned, saying: Yes, let's do it, but let's do it right.
  I know that is old fashioned to some. We live in kind of a turbo-
charged world. We want what we want, and we want it right now. We are a 
world of fast food, Jiffy Lube, 1-hour cleaning, and Minute Rice. We 
want it this instant.
  Senator Byrd brings to us a version of legislative home cooking, 
saying: Let's put all this together the right way. Let's make sure it 
is seasoned the right way because the safety and security of this 
country depends on it.
  Senator Byrd's amendment does not change the deadlines by which we 
will provide homeland security, but he sets up weigh points by which we 
can work with the executive branch to create this new Department of 
Homeland Security. After all, we are talking about putting 170,000 
people in a single agency--one single agency.
  Some would say: Well, that is pretty easy to do. It is not easy to do 
at all. The development of a bureaucracy is always at odds and always 
creates tension with efficiency and effectiveness. Take a look at what 
has happened in recent days, the stories about the CIA and the FBI and 
the kind of work that was done, or not done, with respect to what they 
knew and did not know leading up to September 11.

  It is very important we have agencies put together and locked 
together in a way that protects this county's interests, and especially 
that we have accountability. And that is where the Byrd amendment is so 
important.
  The Byrd amendment will guarantee the accountability of all of the 
Department's activities because it will be assigned to one person. One 
person will be accountable for this agency as it is constructed: the 
Secretary of Homeland Security. I think that is very important to 
understand.
  We are talking about putting together agencies, such as the Coast 
Guard, the Customs Service, Border Patrol, Transportation, security, 
Secret Service. This is a very big project.
  Now, let me talk, just for a moment, about two very specific areas I 
am concerned about because they are part and parcel of this and why it 
is so important we get it right.
  Port security in this country, homeland security/port security: We 
are going to spend $7 to $8 billion defending against an 
intercontinental ballistic missile that is going to come in at 14,000 
miles an hour. People are worried a terrorist or a rogue nation is 
going to get ahold of an ICBM, so we will spend $7 to $8 billion on 
that in the Defense bill this year. But it is far more likely that a 
weapon of mass destruction will come into a port, in a container, on a 
container ship, and pull up to that port at 2 miles per hour.
  We have 5.7 million containers coming into our ports every year and 
5.6 million are not inspected. Dealing with that has to be a part of 
homeland security. That is why we have to get this right.
  What Senator Byrd is suggesting in this amendment is not that we 
should delay the creation of homeland security. It is that, as we move 
along to the 13 months, we, in fact, create weigh points so we can 
measure what we are doing, what the President is doing, what the 
administration is doing.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 4 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. It is very much like when you learn to fly. I learned to 
fly with a private plane once. When you fly, you fly the weigh points 
you establish out there. This legislation says: Yes, let's have a 
Homeland Security Department. Let's meet the deadline, do it on time, 
but let's do it right. And it establishes weigh points by which the 
Congress becomes a full partner with the administration in developing 
and making sure that we implement properly the Homeland Security 
Department.
  If we make a mistake here, it is about the security of the United 
States of America. This is not about wasting money. It is about this 
country's security. That is why this amendment is so important.
  People say: Well, this amendment guts the bill coming out of the 
committee. It does not do anything of the sort. This bill improves it. 
And this bill gives Congress the role it ought to have with the 
administration to make homeland security work for the United States of 
America.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Maryland is recognized for up to 5 minutes.

[[Page S9057]]

  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I rise in support of the Byrd 
amendment and urge my colleagues to back this very important amendment. 
But I also rise to thank the very able Senator from West Virginia for 
his firm and constant leadership on this very important issue. I 
particularly appreciate the careful way in which he has formulated this 
amendment.
  This amendment actually would achieve the establishment of the 
Department within the same timeframe that is contained in the bill 
brought from the committee.
  The only difference is it would do it in stages and would give the 
Congress a continuing role to examine carefully how this is being done, 
how the directorates are put into place, and would give us a better 
chance to carefully examine the full range of implications of many of 
the important principles, including worker protections, civil 
liberties, privacy, secrecy, and which functions to transfer and how 
they should be transferred.
  This is an enormous undertaking. The Senator from West Virginia has 
made a singular contribution in developing the potential ramifications 
and consequences of that with which we are dealing.
  Senator Byrd is given to quoting Roman history. A lot of my 
colleagues tend to consider that as interesting but not always directly 
relevant. I disagree. I think he reaches back and draws out lessons 
which are of extreme importance to us. I particularly like the quote he 
used in this debate of Gaius Petronius Arbiter, who was an adviser to 
Nero:

       We trained hard . . . but it seems 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 an apt quotation as we consider the important issue before us 
today.
  The Baltimore Sun ran an editorial actually concluding that they were 
against establishing the Department of Homeland Security. Senator 
Byrd's amendment does not do that. Senator Byrd is prepared to 
establish the Department, but he wants to be very careful in how we do 
it. The Sun, in that editorial, pointed out that in trying to establish 
this Department, we are taking the focus off the need for tighter 
oversight of the Nation's security systems; that shifting 22 Federal 
agencies and 170,000 employees is a massive undertaking, and it needs 
to be done very carefully.
  That is what the Senator from West Virginia has stressed again and 
again. We need congressional involvement which will help to ensure that 
we will craft the best possible legislation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 4 minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Additional oversight is required in order to assure 
that this is done in the right manner. We have agencies with multiple 
functions. Some relate to homeland security; some do not. How are we 
going to accommodate that complexity? The Byrd amendment, by requiring 
further timely participation of the Congress, will give us the 
opportunity for additional scrutiny to ensure that a massive 
governmental reorganization is done carefully and effectively. We do 
not want to create chaos and confusion which will set us back in our 
efforts to deal with homeland security.
  The Senator from West Virginia has underscored how carefully we did 
the National Security Act that reorganized the Department of Defense. 
That is not being done in this instance. I very strongly support this 
amendment and urge my colleagues to back it.
  I ask unanimous consent the Sun editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Baltimore Sun, Sept. 23, 2002]

                              Boondoggled

       At the risk of sounding heretical, it's time to pull the 
     plug on the plan to create a Department of Homeland Security. 
     Better yet, drive a stake through its heart.
       Months of debate have made clear that this bureaucratic 
     boondoggle offers no promise of making the homeland more 
     secure. Worse, it takes the focus off the need for tighter 
     oversight of the nation's security systems.
       President Bush offered the most sweeping government 
     reorganization in a half-century largely as a political and 
     public relations tactic. He was trying to counter Senate 
     Democrats who were advancing similar legislation of their 
     own.
       He timed the unveiling of his plan to drown out the 
     testimony of FBI Agent Coleen M. Rowley, who was blowing the 
     whistle on the security failures of her hidebound agency that 
     blinded it to clues of the Sept. 11 attacks.
       Shifting 22 federal agencies and 170,000 workers into a new 
     department will cost billions but will do nothing to solve 
     the problems Agent Rowley addressed. What's needed is greater 
     sharing, and coordination and synthesis of the security 
     information collected by the myriad agencies.
       But this new department would not even include the FBI and 
     the CIA, which are the two premier intelligence gatherers. 
     Nor is there any guarantee that greater sharing would take 
     place between them if they were together.
       The FBI, and Drug Enforcement Administration and the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service are already grouped 
     together in the Justice Department, and they don't have a 
     system for streamlined communications. As Agent Rowley told 
     Congress, the various offices of the FBI didn't even share 
     information with each other.
       For the nation's security apparatus to become more 
     efficient, the psychology and culture of those competitive 
     and turf-protective agencies must change. Moving boxes around 
     on an organizational chart and creating cement edifices to 
     house them will do nothing but create more pork-barrel booty 
     for lawmakers eager for new facilities in their home states.
       Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat who opposes 
     creation of the department, contends the homeland security 
     oversight job could be done by upgrading the White House 
     advisor post now held by Tom Ridge. The main reason Senate 
     Democrats starting pushing the idea of a new department was 
     their frustration with Mr. Ridge's refusal to submit to their 
     questioning on the grounds that he was a confidential 
     presidential aide.
       Few lawmakers have openly opposed this sacred cow. The 
     proposal whisked through the House in a matter of hours 
     before the summer recess. It is bogged down in the Senate 
     largely because of a partisan dispute over worker rules.
       Mr. Bush is taking advantage of the opportunity to mow down 
     longstanding worker rights and protections, saying he needs 
     greater flexibility to hire, fire and move workers around.
       That alone is a good reason to deep-six this plan. Civil 
     service laws may well need some updating to attract and 
     retain a quality work force. But the changes should be 
     carefully applied throughout the government to avoid creating 
     a class system in which workers at some agencies are treated 
     better than those at others.
       This Congress will leave much unfinished business. With any 
     luck, that will include this pointless bureaucratic 
     reshuffling.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Minnesota is recognized for up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I am pleased to support the Byrd 
amendment. I thank Senator Joseph Lieberman for his fine work. He was 
talking about a Department of Homeland Security long before the 
administration and understood the need.
  I believe the Byrd amendment is a key improvement.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for 10 seconds?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to.
  Mr. SARBANES. I want to underscore what the Senator said. Senator 
Lieberman has done fine work on this legislation. It is no detraction 
from Senator Lieberman's fine efforts to support the Byrd amendment. In 
fact, I think the two can be perceived as being complementary.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Maryland. His remarks 
reinforce what all of us believe.
  The Byrd amendment would allow for a more orderly transition of 
authorities to a new Homeland Security Department than the underlying 
bill would otherwise provide for. I support the underlying bill, and I 
commend the chairman of the Government Affairs Committee and others for 
their work on it. Long before the Administration concluded that a 
single new Federal department could best protect our domestic security, 
the committee and its chairman, Senator Lieberman, developed the 
framework for such a department. Now that framework is essentially the 
bill we have before us. It is a good framework, but I believe this 
amendment is a key improvement.
  This bill authorizes the largest reorganization of Federal Government 
functions undertaken in half a century. While we have been debating the 
bill for several weeks, I agree with the Senator from West Virginia 
that it is a task that warrants deliberation and care. It is the right 
of Congress to participate deeply both in creating the

[[Page S9058]]

framework for this needed new department, but also in overseeing key 
details of the transition to it. Indeed, in my view, we have not only 
the right to participate. We have an obligation.
  The Byrd amendment would allow immediate creation of a new Homeland 
Security Department. It would immediately establish the superstructure 
of the Secretary and the six directorates as outlined by the Lieberman 
substitute, and then require that the administration submit three 
separate legislative proposals to transfer agencies and functions to 
the new Department. This would give Congress the opportunity to gauge 
and modify how the new Department is being implemented, while it drafts 
legislation to transfer additional functions and agencies and would 
provide Congress with additional means to head off problems that 
traditionally plague and delay massive reorganizations. What's more, 
under the Byrd amendment, Congress would be required to act on these 
legislative proposals within 13 months on enactment, which is roughly 
the same time period outlined by the Lieberman plan.
  Once the Department of Homeland Security is established, the 
Secretary will submit legislative proposals and recommendations for the 
orderly transfer of agencies and functions, based on the Department's 
actual needs in carrying out its mission.
  Through additional involvement in the implementation of agency 
transfers and reorganizations, Congress will be able to exercise 
meaningful oversight after the enactment of homeland security 
legislation.
  The Byrd amendment gives Congress a much-needed opportunity to review 
more thoroughly the details of the reorganization during the one-year 
transition period established in the Lieberman bill.
  Congress can use this time to consider specific agency transfers, 
worker protection policies, new intelligence authority, and 
constitutional protections, instead of handing off unresolved questions 
for the President and the Secretary to answer.
  Under the Byrd amendment, Congress will receive better information 
from the administration during the implementation the Lieberman bill, 
including the criteria used by the administration in choosing which 
agencies and functions to transfer into the Department.
  The Byrd Amendment guides us towards a more rational approach for 
undertaking the task of creating the new department, and I support it. 
Protecting the American homeland is not just President Bush's 
responsibility. It is our responsibility as well. And it is the 
responsibility of future presidents and future Congresses. So we must 
make sure that we do everything within our power now to create the very 
best structure to protect our's and future generations.
  As I have said, Madam President, the Byrd amendment will allow for 
the immediate creation of a new Homeland Security Department. It is 
important to understand that. There is no delay, and we have the same 
basic legislative time period of 13 months. Once the Department of 
Homeland Security is established, the Secretary will submit legislative 
proposals and recommendations for the orderly transfer of agencies and 
functions based on the Department's actual needs in carrying on its 
mission. Through additional involvement in the implementation of the 
agency transfers and reorganizations, Congress will be able to exercise 
meaningful oversight after the enactment of homeland security 
legislation.
  That is what is so important about the Byrd amendment. It guides us 
toward a more rational approach to the undertaking of the task of 
creating a new Department. I support it.
  Protecting the American homeland is not just President Bush's 
responsibility or any President's responsibility; it is our 
responsibility as well. It is the responsibility of future Presidents 
and future Congresses.
  We must do everything within our power now to create the very best 
structure to protect our future and that of our children and 
grandchildren. I believe the Byrd amendment is a positive contribution.
  Senator Byrd plays a key, indispensable role. Senator Byrd has been 
on the floor week after week calling on all of us to exercise our 
constitutional responsibility; talking about the importance of 
legislative involvement, the importance of checks and balances, the 
importance of deliberation, the importance of understanding full well 
the consequences of what we do.
  The Senator from West Virginia deserves a tremendous amount of credit 
for his exceptional work as a Senator. I am very pleased to support the 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from California is recognized for up to 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank Senator Byrd for allowing me to 
take some of this time. It is truly an honor for me to rise on behalf 
of his amendment.
  If ever there has been a more fierce, more forthright defender of the 
Constitution and the responsibilities we have as Senators, I can think 
of none other.
  Clearly, what we have before us is a bill crafted by Senator 
Lieberman which is far better than what has come out of the House, far 
better than what the administration put forward. There is no question 
in my mind that Senator Lieberman has taken us forward.
  I have to say, as someone who has been in office for many years, I 
have come to be very skeptical about a huge reshuffling of agencies in 
Government and huge moves without lots of time to look at the 
ramifications. My belief is that in moving so quickly to such a large 
reshuffling, we are going to bring about less accountability, not more, 
in terms of how this Government functions.
  Senator Byrd is saying, yes, we need to create this Department. Let's 
bring forward some of the best and brightest people to begin to put it 
together. But let's slow down; let's take a deep breath. Let's make 
sure what we are doing is going to result in more protection for the 
American people, more efficiency on behalf of these departments, not 
less.
  I am also very concerned about the movement away from rights for 
people who will work in this Department. Senator Lieberman has been 
very strong, and I hope he will prevail, but I am very concerned that 
more than 40,000 people in this new Department who do not deal directly 
with national security--they may be, for example, a secretary, a file 
clerk, someone who works in that Department--are going to lose worker 
protections.
  I have said before, and I will reiterate it today, that it is a very 
cynical move, I believe a grab of power on behalf of this 
administration, to do that to these people. Doesn't the President have 
more things to occupy himself--and I know he does--than worrying about 
whether a secretary or a file clerk has the ability to say to the 
people who supervise her, through her union, through her bargaining 
unit: I need a better salary; I need better health care; explain to me 
what my work rules will be? I do not think any President--this one or 
any future one--should interfere with that. It is very important that 
people have their dignity.
  On the one hand, we have the President saying he is creating this new 
Department and it is so important; on the other hand, what is the first 
thing he wants to do? He wants to strip away the rights of people.
  In California over the weekend, I spoke to working men and women, 
maybe about a thousand of them. I pointed out to them what I have 
pointed out in this Chamber--and others have pointed it out, too--that 
the real heroes of 9/11 were not politicians, were not any Senators or 
Members of Congress. Certainly not. And certainly not anyone sitting in 
the Oval Office or in the Old Executive Office Building.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 4 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, do I have 1 minute remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, the real heroes of 9/11 were working men 
and women, and they did not look at their watch and say: Gee, am I 
working overtime? They just went into those burning buildings. That is 
important.
  Mr. President, when I first read the details of the President's 
Homeland Security Department proposal, I was concerned. And when the 
House leadership passed the President's proposal without so much as a 
second glance, I was dismayed.

[[Page S9059]]

  Instead of a creating a blueprint for enhanced domestic security and 
more efficient Government, the President and a handful of others have 
created a patchwork proposal.
  The legislation created by Senator Lieberman stands in distinct 
contrast to the House-passed bill.
  I believe the amendment proposed by Senator Byrd builds upon and 
strengthens the good work of Senator Lieberman and his committee. The 
Byrd amendment provides for the creation of a Department of Homeland 
Security--just as the Lieberman bill does. But, instead of immediately 
moving agencies into the new Department's directorates, the 
administration would be required to come back to Congress--and to the 
relevant House and Senate oversight committees--with detailed 
legislative proposals before any transition actually occurs.
  Many questions remain unanswered about this Department of Homeland 
Security. The Byrd amendment would require the President and his 
advisors to address these questions before agencies are moved into the 
new Department.
  If we grant the administration the statutory powers it is demanding 
without first passing the Byrd amendment and making it part of the 
final bill we send to the President, we will lose the support, I 
believe, to get it right.
  The Byrd amendment would also ensure that the implementation of the 
Department occurs in a more thoughtful way, with more openness and less 
secrecy.
  I will conclude in this way: I am proud to support Senator Byrd's 
amendment. I hope my colleagues will do so, too. It retains the checks 
and balances that are so important and that our Founders told us we 
must do. It also will result in a Department that will be well thought 
out and that means it will, in fact, protect the people of this country 
in a much better way than we are being protected today.
  I thank the Chair very much and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, is recognized for up to 5 
minutes.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I rise today in support of the Byrd amendment to 
ensure the proper deliberation and congressional oversight in the 
creation of the Department of Homeland Security. While I applaud the 
chairman and ranking member for working to develop changes in our 
Federal system to better harden our defenses against potential 
terrorism targets, and to create effective, integrated protections, we 
must not allow the task of government reorganization to distract us 
from our vulnerabilities.
  I think it is particularly timely that we are on the floor debating 
how to protect ourselves from the future of any kind of 9/11 attacks 
while the Intelligence Committee is discussing the implications of its 
report that demonstrates how the primary weakness is not the fact we 
did not have a 170,000-person Federal agency.
  Instead, we are learning that the men and women of our intelligence 
community neither have the resources nor the adequate mechanisms in 
place to communicate and to share information and to connect the dots 
before an attack happened.
  I urge my colleagues to remember, while creation of a Homeland 
Security Department is an important step, which I believe is about 
hardening our targets and creating redundancy, we cannot ignore the 
primary challenge we are facing in intelligence gathering.
  Similarly, any forward movement in strengthening our homeland 
security must not also distract us from our constitutionally mandated 
responsibilities to provide the necessary oversight and adequate 
deliberation in the enormous process of creating a new Department.
  Make no mistake, we are currently considering some giant and 
unprecedented changes to our Federal system:
  We are radically reshaping our Federal Government to meet new goals.
  We are contemplating dramatic--and I think fundamentally unwise--
changes to important civil service laws.
  We are deliberating substantial changes to the roles and missions of 
many important agencies that provide important functions for our 
country.
  We are even considering unprecedented changes in the relationship 
between Congress and the administration by handing over substantial 
aspects of our constitutionally derived authority to shape and form the 
functions of Government.
  Despite the enormity of this effort and its implications, some have 
criticized the Senate for not rushing this legislation through this 
body. I submit that these critics are wrong. We are accountable to our 
constituents for good, thoughtful legislation--not the rate at which we 
pass a bill.
  Our Founding Fathers created an ingenious system of Government that 
stresses deliberation as the only rational method to ensure sound 
decisionmaking.
  This piece of legislation--perhaps the most important, wide-ranging 
legislation that has come before the Senate in recent years--deserves 
thoughtful consideration that is absolutely necessary in putting 
together this new agency.
  That is exactly what Senator Byrd is proposing that we do. I thank 
the distinguished President pro tempore for his effort in stressing the 
importance of this responsibility.
  The Byrd amendment will strengthen Senator Lieberman's bill by 
sending the message that this body is committed to creating a 
Department of Homeland Security with a mission to protect the American 
people and with the clear determination that we will act responsibly in 
doing so because we want to get it right. This is critically important 
because it would require the implementation of the new Department to be 
considered by Congress.
  The Byrd amendment ensures that the important first step is followed 
by a process that will ensure that Congress and the Nation are involved 
in asking the right questions when it comes to the specific details of 
this reorganization, including the specific agencies and 
responsibilities that need to be transferred, the personnel strategies 
that need to be implemented, and a wide array of other logistical 
issues.
  Any reorganization of this magnitude is difficult and complex. I can 
tell you, having been in the private sector, I have seen a lot of 
reorganizations in the private sector that don't go as smoothly as 
people want them to. And on a much larger scale, this proposal, I 
believe, deserves the kind of attention this amendment gives it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 4 minutes.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I think there are two fundamental 
examples in this bill. One of them is the Coast Guard--I am sure my 
colleague from Washington will expound on this--which is being 
transferred. The critical mission of that agency needs to be secured 
and understood as that agency is transferred. The other is an important 
opportunity within the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
with the Computer Security Division--again, a key mission that is being 
met for the private sector in creating technology standards that may be 
transferred, and that mission may be lost.
  In summary, it is critically important that we not rush to make these 
changes and then believe we have delivered service to the American 
people. Let them be sure we are involved in guaranteeing that this 
agency is hardening our targets and strengthening our redundancy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Washington, Mrs. 
Murray, is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, for the past several weeks we have been 
talking about the proposal to create a Department of Homeland Security. 
I think it is very clear that there are a lot of details that still 
need to be worked out.
  I thank Senator Byrd for his leadership and his patience in raising 
the questions that must be raised to improve our security and our 
safety.
  I want to make sure we don't just ``do something'' about security, 
but that we do the right thing. Let's face it, it takes time to get the 
simple things right. I have been working with the Transportation 
Security Administration now for months on airline security and we still 
have not worked out all of the issues. It took a long time for us to 
get the National Guard to deploy to our northern border. In creating 
this new Department, I want to make sure we get it right.

[[Page S9060]]

  Three weeks ago, I spoke on the Senate floor and raised a number of 
questions, and at this point I am still troubled by the lack of answers 
I have received. There are many different ways to set up this 
Department. The President has offered one way. His proposal was created 
in a short amount of time by a few officials meeting at the White House 
in secret. We don't know how the President's proposal will balance the 
security and the economic needs of the American people.
  As I have stated before, 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 combine these various 
agencies into one massive Homeland Security Department, how are we 
going to meet the traditional mission?
  Just look at the Coast Guard. Since September 11, the Coast Guard has 
shifted resources away from their traditional missions to homeland 
defense. That is an appropriate response, but it comes at a cost. What 
the shift in resources means to the average American is that the Coast 
Guard is now spending less time interdicting drugs and illegal 
immigrants, enforcing fishery and marine safety laws, and protecting 
our marine environment. Yet the need for the Coast Guard to perform 
these vital missions is as important today as it was before the attack 
on our country.
  Unfortunately, we have not figured out how to effectively carry out 
both missions at the same time. I would like to know how one massive 
Department, focused primarily on security, will more effectively 
address all of our safety and security needs.
  Secondly, I am very concerned about how this new Department will 
function. The administration has asked for unprecedented power and 
control over this proposed Department. The President wants to change 
the personnel rules so he can have what he calls flexibility. From what 
I understand, the administration already has flexibility under current 
law.
  In addition to dramatic new controls over workers, the administration 
wants the power to move money around without congressional input. From 
what I have seen so far, that is pretty scary news for families in my 
State of Washington.
  Right now, I can fight to make sure that the needs in my State are 
being met. But if the administration gets this unprecedented authority, 
then accountants in the Office of Management and Budget will decide 
what is important to the people in my home State. If that happens, my 
constituents are going to lose out--at a cost to their safety and their 
security.
  So we need to better understand and define all of the missions in the 
various agencies. We need to make sure they continue to fulfill their 
traditional missions. That is why I support the Byrd amendment. It will 
allow us to move forward in a pragmatic manner that allows us to do 
this right. It is essential for our economic security and our future 
safety.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Byrd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, is recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, for literally more than a year now, the bipartisan 
membership of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee has been 
working to strengthen our homeland security, particularly and intensely 
after the events of September 11 which showed the extent to which the 
disorganization of Federal homeland security activities created 
vulnerabilities of which the terrorists took advantage.
  The amendment offered by the great Senator from West Virginia is the 
most direct challenge the committee's work will face in this debate 
because it puts at issue the question not only of the approach the 
committee has taken in creating the Department but whether we in the 
Senate believe it is urgently necessary to have a Department of 
Homeland Security, a better organized Federal Government to protect the 
American people anytime soon.
  This amendment will retain the basic administrative structure of the 
Department as we have proposed, but that is all. The amendment 
nominally sets up the same six directorates as the Governmental Affairs 
Committee proposal, but that is where the similarity ends.
  Here is an example: We created a directorate for emergency 
preparedness and response. Our Committee proposal transfers six 
distinct agencies, or sets of programs, and includes more than seven 
pages of legislative text specifying the missions and operating 
provisions of the directorate. The parallel provision in Senator Byrd's 
amendment, section 134, found on page 37 of that amendment, consists of 
not seven pages but seven lines of text. Three creates the directorate, 
and four authorizes an Under Secretary to run it. But that is all. No 
goals, no missions, no duties, no programs, no personnel, no 
directorate in any real sense. That is the approach taken by this 
amendment for all of the directorates, with the exception of 
Immigration, where the amendment does not disturb our provision to 
transfer and restructure the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  For example, our provisions regarding a new division of intelligence 
would immediately begin building a potent new capability to analyze all 
information regarding terrorist threats and disseminate the information 
to help prevent or protect against attacks.
  The Intelligence Directorate in the Byrd amendment is an empty room 
with a name on the door, awaiting future legislation to give it staff 
and purpose; and so it would remain, I fear, indefinitely, because 
there is no effective termination point, no effective implementation 
point in the amendment's structure.
  Section 139 of the Byrd amendment calls for the Secretary of the new 
Department to submit to Congress over the course of the next year a 
series of legislative proposals for these shell directorates, including 
recommendations for the transfer of authorities, functions, personnel, 
assets, agencies, or entities, all of which would fill them up and give 
them some meaning.
  Those recommendations are to be submitted to Congress at least 4 
months apart, beginning no sooner than February 3, 2003--next year. 
That means that, at best, Congress would have the administration's 
proposals a year from now--a year to recreate proposals that we have 
before us today.

  The amendment states that Congress should take action on these 
proposals within 13 months of enactment of the underlying homeland 
security legislation. But even if this deadline were heeded, it means 
only that Congress would take some action. Congress could reject one or 
more of the proposals or vote to study the matter further. The fact is 
that it is very hard to bind a future Congress to do anything. So at 
the end of the year, under the committee's proposal, that is the 
deadline for this Department to be fully up and running. Thirty days 
after the President signs legislation under our proposal, the new 
Secretary would have the power to start getting the Department running. 
A lot of it would start rapidly, but it would all be done within a 
year.
  Within a year, under the Byrd amendment, there is nothing but the 
hope that Congress will react to the proposals the administration will 
have sent it. So with the exception of immigration functions, there 
would be no assurance in the end that anything would ever be 
transferred into the new Department. It could indefinitely remain a 
bare-bones proposal with no meat on its skeletal frame whatsoever.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Vermont is recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, let me begin by commending Senator 
Lieberman for leading this debate. I appreciate the hard work the 
Senator from Connecticut, the Governmental Affairs Committee, and the 
staff put into this important legislation.
  I rise today to support the amendment of the homeland security 
legislation that has been proposed by my colleague from West Virginia, 
Senator Byrd.
  I am concerned about the path we are proceeding down to create this 
new Department, and I doubt that the result of this flawed process will 
adequately address the intelligence failures that were revealed so 
tragically on September 11, 2001.
  Congress must not cede its constitutional role and responsibilities 
to the

[[Page S9061]]

executive branch in this dramatic Government reorganization. Congress 
must remain engaged in this effort to ensure it results in a 
functioning, effective agency.
  This mandate is made clearer when we compare the current process with 
similar reorganizations in the past.
  For instance, comparisons have been drawn between this legislation 
and the creation of the Department of Defense. But the creation of the 
Department of Defense involved a collaborative process between the 
executive branch and the Congress. And the executive branch agencies 
affected by the proposed Department were participants in the process.
  Thus, the Department of Defense was founded upon discussion, debate, 
and compromise.
  This cooperative approach to developing a workable new Department 
contrasts starkly with the way the administration developed its 
homeland security draft legislation.
  A small group of advisers working in secret within the White House 
developed President Bush's proposal. Members of Congress and 
Secretaries of the affected cabinet agencies were reportedly not even 
informed about the proposal until the days before it was unveiled.
  And even now, rather than working with Congress to develop consensus 
on this legislation, the administration insists it will veto any 
proposal that does not closely resemble its own.
  Of specific concern, the administration's proposal does not place 
enough emphasis on correcting what went wrong prior to September 11. I 
firmly hope that we, as a Nation will develop a comprehensive plan to 
address the shortcomings in our intelligence gathering and 
communication efforts.

  Because of the similarity of the September 11 attacks and the attack 
on Pearl Harbor over 60 years ago, we should remember the finding of 
the Joint Congressional Committee that investigated Pearl Harbor.
  That Committee found that ``. . . the security of the Nation can be 
insured only through . . . centralization of responsibility in those 
charged with handling intelligence.''
  I hope we will learn our lesson after the tragic events of September 
11. Correcting intelligence failures must be the hallmark of any new 
Department of Homeland Security.
  This reorganization will affect the lives of everyday Americans for 
years to come. Because the President's proposal does not adequately 
address intelligence failures, and because the administration refuses 
to enter into a constructive dialogue with the Congress regarding 
legitimate disagreements, we have a constitutional responsibility to 
act.
  Therefore, I support Senator Byrd's amendment to the homeland 
security legislation. The Byrd amendment will go along way toward 
ensuring Congress continues to play a constructive role in shaping the 
new Department as this process moves forward.
  I commend the Senator from West Virginia for his help and assistance 
in helping us all to better understand this problem.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Under the previous 
order, the Senator from Michigan is recognized to speak for up to 5 
minutes.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I acknowledge, as other colleagues have, 
the important work of the Senator from Connecticut. Senator Lieberman 
was the first to outline the reasons for bringing together all of the 
essential functions of Government that relate to homeland security. I 
know he has put literally hundreds of hours into this effort, and we 
thank him for that.
  I support the Byrd amendment as an addition to this effort, not as a 
detraction, because I believe what Senator Byrd has articulated is a 
very important part of the way we put together a Department of Homeland 
Security. I think it is essential. So while I support the homeland 
security effort, I believe it is important to move forward along the 
timelines and with the checks and balances that Senator Byrd so 
thoughtfully has put together.
  Simply put, the mission of this Department is too important to be 
rushed into law. I know the Senator from Connecticut would say that 
after months and months it does not seem like rushing; that there has 
been a tremendous amount of effort that has gone into this. But as that 
is said, I also know it is a huge task bringing together 170,000 
employees, and there are many questions about the various departments, 
so this is something that will take continued time and thoughtfulness 
to be able to put together.
  There are many questions that remain, and if the public is to have 
confidence in the new Department, those questions need to be answered. 
For instance, why are certain agencies being transferred into the new 
Department? What criteria are the administration using to determine 
what agencies should be transferred? Almost all of these agencies being 
transferred have other functions not related to homeland security, 
which is of great concern in Michigan--this has been raised in a number 
of contexts--and how will those functions be separated? How will they 
be affected?

  In Michigan, we have concerns about the Coast Guard, which is a very 
important part of our operations not only in fighting terrorism but we 
want to make sure there are sufficient resources to deter terrorists 
from coming into our country by boat. We also know there is a critical 
role in search and rescue operations and ship inspections. We want to 
make sure in Michigan we do not lose resources for those essential 
civilian functions as well as the important efforts to fight terrorism.
  In earlier discussions about the Homeland Security Department, the 
Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection System, 
or APHIS, would have been moved to the Homeland Security Department. 
While it is reasonable that the border inspection mission of APHIS 
would be a part of the new Department, it is also critical the domestic 
mission of protecting animal and plant health, and ultimately the 
health of American consumers, remains within the Department of 
Agriculture. If the full transfer of APHIS comes up again, I would like 
to debate and vote on that.
  Those are the kinds of issues I am concerned about. We have workforce 
questions. There are a number of issues that have been raised which I 
believe need our continual input, and that is why I support the 
timeframe that has been put together in the Byrd amendment to create 
the Department without delay but then to come back to the Congress, 
receive input, take it step by step to make sure we are, in fact, doing 
it right. That is what the Byrd amendment is all about. It is about 
creating this Department with input feedback, coordination, and 
cooperation that is going to enable us to do this huge job.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 4 minutes.
  Ms. STABENOW. I believe the Byrd amendment is a more disciplined 
process that will help us create a Department that is cohesive, 
responsive, and effective with its duties and missions clearly defined. 
I urge my colleagues to join with so many of us in supporting the Byrd 
amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Under the order that was entered last night, Senator Byrd 
had requested 10 minutes. We all thought it was 5 minutes, but I think 
it is appropriate he have the 10 minutes. Therefore, I ask unanimous 
consent that Senator Lieberman be extended another 5 minutes to balance 
out that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from West Virginia is 
recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is my understanding Senator Thompson 
wants to speak. I ask the Chair to alert me when I have consumed 4 
minutes and when I have consumed 5 minutes. I hope by the time I use 5 
minutes Mr. Thompson will be in the Chamber so the other side can be 
heard, I can then speak, and then Mr. Lieberman can close out the 
debate.
  I congratulate Mr. Lieberman, the Governmental Affairs Committee, and 
all of the staff members of that committee. They have worked hard, they 
have worked long, and they have produced a bill that is, in my 
judgment, a great improvement over the House bill.
  My amendment only addresses title I of the Governmental Affairs bill. 
The other titles are not touched by my amendment.

[[Page S9062]]

  What does my amendment do? My amendment substitutes for title I in 
the Lieberman bill in a way that provides congressional oversight and a 
systematic and orderly process by which the agencies are transferred 
into the new Department.
  My amendment provides for the creation of a Department of Homeland 
Security. My amendment provides for the same superstructure as does the 
Lieberman amendment: in other words, the same directorates in title I 
and the same number of Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and so 
on. Those are how the two titles, title I in the Lieberman bill and 
title I in the Byrd amendment, are the same. What is the difference, 
then? The difference is my amendment provides for an orderly process 
whereby, in every 120 days over the next 13 months, there will be a 
transfer of agencies into the Department. So these will occur at 120-
day intervals, unlike the Lieberman bill, which provides for the 
wholesale transfer over the next 13 months; it could come early, it 
could come late, it could come earlier than 90 days after the passage 
of the bill, or it could come as late as the close of the transition 
period, which is 12 months following the first 30 days.

  Mr. Lieberman says the Department will be up and running in 13 months 
under his legislation. But his legislation requires only that agencies 
be transferred by the conclusion of the 13 months. It doesn't say they 
will be up and running. His bill in that respect is exactly like my 
amendment. Both the Lieberman bill and the Byrd amendment provide for 
the conclusions of the transfers of agencies over the 13 months--by the 
end of the transition period, which is the end of the 13 months.
  Neither his bill nor my amendment provides that the Department will 
be ``up and running,'' as the distinguished Senator has said. No 
legislation can guarantee when the Department will be ``up and 
running.'' It will likely be years, which is why Congress needs to 
ensure a continuing role for itself.
  So there will be an orderly process under the Byrd amendment, and the 
chaos that will occur under the Lieberman proposal will be avoided.
  Congress is kept involved under the Byrd amendment, which means that 
the Lieberman committee will be kept involved. My amendment provides 
for the protection of employee rights, privacy, and civil liberties. 
How does it do that? Because Congress stays involved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 4 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Congress is involved. Mr. Lieberman's committee will be involved time 
and again--once, twice, three times. So Congress will be there, looking 
over the shoulder of the agencies, so to speak, looking over the 
shoulder of the administration, looking over the shoulder of the 
President. The President has said he needs flexibility.
  We hear that worker rights will be challenged, will be jeopardized. 
That is not true under my amendment because of the fact that Congress 
will always be there, looking over the shoulders of those who would be 
acting to constitute the agency transfers.
  Time and again, the workers' rights will be under surveillance 
because Congresses will not pass this bill and then walk away, as would 
be the case in the Lieberman bill, in which instance the Congress would 
pass the bill now, and then for the next 13 months----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Over the next 13 months, Congress would walk away to the 
sidelines.
  So under my amendment, we are not going to say: Mr. President, here 
is the bill. You take it. Just report back to us from time to time and 
let us know how it is working. Congress is not going to relegate itself 
to a zero. Congress is going to be involved. Congress will be there to 
protect worker rights, to protect privacy, to protect civil liberties.
  So I urge the Senators to vote for my amendment. I reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield up to 5 minutes of the time I 
have to the Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues again for their 
eloquent statements on behalf of their positions. I think the issue 
with regard to this amendment has been well clarified because of those 
statements. I think it is pretty obvious now that there is almost 
unanimity that we need to proceed with the homeland security bill--
unanimity in this body. There is disagreement as to whether we ought to 
get about doing it or whether we should delay it. I think that is the 
fundamental issue with regard to this amendment.
  This amendment that has been offered by the Senator from West 
Virginia would basically postpone the implementation of the new 
Department for at least a year. The President's proposals in the House 
and Senate bills all establish directorates. They list 
responsibilities, transfer funds to agencies.
  Senator Byrd strikes from the Lieberman substitute all language 
spelling out responsibilities and transfers of functions for each 
directorate, leaving only language establishing each directorate under 
an Under Secretary. Instead, he requires the administration to provide 
legislative proposals in the future, no sooner than February of 2003 
for border and transportation, no sooner than 120 days later for 
intelligence and for critical infrastructure, and no sooner than 120 
days after that for emergency preparedness and science and technology.
  The overall thrust is to delay implementation of this bill. The 
question we have to ask ourselves is whether we believe, in the 
exercise of our responsibilities as representatives of the people of 
our States, that that is the thing to do, that is where we are. I 
suggest we already have legislative proposals before us that the 
Senator from West Virginia would have the administration produce 
sometime next year.
  We in government, especially those in the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, have been watching and listening and discussing for years 
the way the Government in many respects is dysfunctional. It has been 
created and added onto little by little over the years. It needs 
reorganization in the worst sort of way. We have been listening and 
watching and discussing the fact that the threat to our country from 
rogue nations and from terrorists is growing and growing and growing. 
This is not new information to any of us.
  The disorganization of government and the growing threat of 
especially nuclear proliferation have been things that have been before 
this body for years and years and years. Unfortunately, it takes 
something like September 11 to get us activated so we even have a 
discussion such as this.
  Now we have a proposal that says essentially we are moving too fast, 
although commissions started telling us 2 years ago what we needed to 
do. We started having hearings a year ago with regard to what we needed 
to do, and we have had 18 hearings on homeland security in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee alone and dozens of other hearings in 
the House and the Senate.
  Is it really too rapid? Are we really moving too fast? Is that a 
criticism that is a just accusation to this body: That we are speeding 
this thing along, at long last, after all the information and hearings 
and GAO reports that you could stack as high as your head about the 
problems with Government and the way it needs to be reorganized and 
needs to be more efficient, that we have too much waste and fraud and 
abuse and mismanagement and overlap and duplication--for years and 
years, and nobody paid any attention to it?

  Now we are finally getting around to addressing some of this, and the 
issue before us is whether or not we need to wait at least another year 
before we even start doing those things. I suggest we do not. I suggest 
we need to get on about it. I suggest obviously there are going to be a 
lot of twists and turns in the road.
  We have seen amendments to the Department of Energy Act recently. We 
have seen DOD amendments in 1985, major amendments, Goldwater-Nickles. 
Major pieces of legislation creating major departments or consolidated 
departments always produce the need to revisit those issues at a 
subsequent time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I ask for an additional 1 minute.

[[Page S9063]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may continue.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I suggest Congress is not going to lose its oversight. 
It has been under Congress's oversight, I might add, that this 
duplication, waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, and civil service 
system, which the Brookings Institution and representatives there say 
fails and underwhelms in every task it takes--it has been under our 
supervision that that has been created. With the appropriations process 
and the oversight process, if we do it correctly--not the way we have 
necessarily done it in the past; if we do it correctly--Congress will 
have a firm hand as we go down the road in the creation and the 
implementation of this new Department.
  It is not because we are moving too fast or because of any structural 
deficiencies that Congress has not had the proper hand. It is because 
we just simply have not done it. I suggest it is about time we did it. 
The creation of this Department is the first step in that regard.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Byrd amendment.
  I had a conversation recently with Alexander Giacco, the former 
chairman of the board of Hercules, Incorporated. Mr. Giacco, although 
not taking a position on this amendment, impressed upon me the 
difficulty of wholesale organizational change, of the importance of 
getting such a structural upheaval right, and it is his comments which 
in part guide my vote this morning.
  Senator Byrd has it right. Senator Byrd warned us months ago that a 
Department of Homeland Security was needed, but that the way to create 
such a massive new structure was not to rush into a new flow chart 
without asking questions first. The way to do this job right is to be 
deliberate, to be thoughtful, and to ask the tough questions about how 
our Federal agencies will interact so as to better protect the Nation. 
Senator Byrd's amendment gets us to a new Department as quickly as does 
the President's proposal and as does the proposal reported favorably by 
the Committee on Governmental Affairs in July.
  It is important for us first to understand all that has been done 
since September 11 to boost our homeland defenses. In the 12 months 
since the attacks, the President and the Congress have moved with 
dispatch. The President created the Office of Homeland Security and 
selected the able Tom Ridge as its head. I was proud to work with my 
colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to draft the USA Patriot Act. 
That bill was a long overdue strengthening of our laws against terror. 
It increased the ability of law enforcement to share information, 
facilitated the sharing of information from criminal investigations, 
and reconsidered the wall that has in the past prevented the FBI and 
the CIA from working effectively together.
  The FBI has expanded its terrorist threat warning system. A new five-
level homeland security alert system has been created. Ninety-three 
antiterrorism task forces have been created in U.S. Attorney offices 
around the country. INS and Customs are working together to increase 
their cooperation in border enforcement. The FBI now provides 
information, on a daily basis, to terrorism task forces nationwide as 
well as to the CIA and the Defense Department. Director Mueller is in 
the process of revamping the entire FBI so that its primary focus is 
the prevention of terrorism. The INS and the State Department have 
together developed a Consolidated Consular Database, a database that 
includes visa information and photographs for aliens seeking entry into 
the U.S.
  We have created an entire new agency, the Transportation Security 
Administration. Its sole mission is to protect the Nation' s 
transportation systems. TSA has deployed federal passenger screeners to 
122 airports. They have hired more than 32,000 new Federal security 
screeners. These screeners will be in all 429 commercial airports by 
November 19. Ultimately, TSA will hire some 54,000 Federal passenger 
and baggage screener workers. This represents a wholesale change from 
the way the country organized its airport security systems prior to 
September 11.
  Congress, with the leadership of Senator Byrd, has passed an 
emergency supplemental spending bill designed to increase the resources 
available to our States and localities and so the country can better 
prevent and respond to terror threats.
  The President's proposal was developed extremely rapidly, after 
months of Administration claims that a Homeland Security Department was 
not necessary, and by a tiny number of people with little to no 
expertise in security matters. In contrast, the chairman of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee has been at this issue for over a year, 
Senator Lieberman rightly alerted us to the recommendations of the Hart 
/ Rudman Commission and others even before September 11. His committee 
held a series of hearings over the past year to determine how best to 
restructure and reorganize Federal agencies so that they are best 
positioned to respond to terror.
  It is much more important that we do this right rather than doing 
this quickly. Imagine the impact on our country if we get this massive 
job wrong. Reorganizations are hard work, and if history is any guide 
our first effort often needs to revisited. Modern management principles 
teach that the agencies and functions of the executive branch should be 
grouped together based on their major purposes or missions. The 
National Security Act of 1947 created the Department of Defense, the 
Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council. Even 
this well thought out proposal has required serious congressional 
tinkering: Congress made further amendments to the organization of our 
national security agencies in 1949, 1953, 1958, and in 1986.
  Senator Byrd's amendment builds on the work of the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs. The amendment retains the overall administrative 
structure as envisioned by the committee: six new directorates, each 
headed by an Under Secretary. A new Directorate of Immigration Affairs 
is created, and recommendations made by Senators Kennedy and Brownback 
to reform the INS are adopted there. The new Secretary of Homeland 
Security is required to submit to Congress recommendations for 
structuring the other five directorates. The first recommendation would 
be received by Congress no later than February of next year. Congress 
is required to take action on all of the administration's proposals by 
13 months from after the legislation goes into effect. The Department 
would be in place in 13 months time at the latest, the same timeframe 
envisioned by Senator Lieberman's proposal.
  The Byrd amendment gives us an orderly process under which agencies 
are transferred into the new Department. The Governmental Affairs bill 
requires that agencies are transferred to the new Department over a 
transition period lasting 13 months. But neither the Byrd Amendment nor 
the Governmental Affairs Committee's bill guarantees that a new 
Department will be ``up and running'' in just over a year's time. In 
fact, the General Accounting Office has testified that Congress should 
not expect ``meaningful and sustainable results'' from the new 
Department for at least 5 years, and perhaps as long as 10 years, due 
to the inherently slow nature of transitioning so many agencies into 
one new structure. Timing of the creating of a new Department is thus 
not an issue under either proposal.
  Senator Byrd's proposal guarantees that the new Department will be 
created with increased congressional oversight over its functions. 
Congress will not be able to pass this bill and walk away. Rather, we 
will be forced to more closely scrutinize these proposals to better 
ensure that the new Department will function effectively. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Byrd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 4 minutes 
19 seconds.
  Mr. BYRD. There remain 4 minutes 19 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Chair inform me when I have 1 
minute remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.

[[Page S9064]]

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee and 
others have claimed that my amendment would delay the implementation of 
the Department.
  The exact opposite is true. My amendment will provide in an 
inordinate way the expeditious functioning and the expeditious 
transfers of the various agencies in the Department.
  Let me say this, too. The people who are going to protect this 
country under a new Homeland Security Department are protecting this 
country today. They are on the borders every night. They are at the 
ports of entry. They are at the airports. We saw only recently the FBI 
arrest of six persons of Yemeni descent. According to the FBI, they 
constitute a terrorist cell. So the FBI is out there doing its job. We 
don't have a Department of Homeland Security. It didn't keep the FBI 
from doing its work. These people are out there every night and every 
day, 24 hours a day. So the work is going forward. Even if we never 
create a Homeland Security Department, these people are out there, and 
they are performing their work, and doing it admirably.
  The argument has been made that Senators should oppose my amendment 
because it would undo the work of the Governmental Affairs Committee 
and force the Senate to readdress issues that have already been 
decided. But the Senate has not decided these issues, and they won't be 
decided even if we pass the Lieberman bill.
  Of the 80-plus Federal agencies that currently have homeland 
security-related functions, we don't know why 28 of those agencies and 
offices were chosen by the administration and endorsed by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee to be transferred to this new 
Department. We don't know how the administration will reorganize these 
agencies once they are transferred.
  We don't even have a budget for this new Department. So we have no 
idea about the costs associated with implementing it or how the 
administration plans to pay for this Department. We don't know if and 
by how much worker protection will be curtailed within this new 
Department.
  Yet the Lieberman bill would have the Congress grant the statutory 
powers to the administration to create this Department and require only 
that the President report back to the Congress and to the American 
people after these decisions have already been made. The Congress would 
walk away from this new Department and require only that the President 
let us know how everything turns out.
  My amendment seeks to create a process by which the Congress would 
retain control over the implementation of the new Department. It seeks 
to ensure that this Department is not left to languish in a limbo of 
chaos and confusion.
  My amendment seeks to ensure that the Congress thoroughly consider 
what we are doing before granting broad authority to the administration 
with regard to such fundamental concerns as civil service protections 
and the privacy rights and civil liberties of the American public.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 3 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I will tell you what is delaying the work of homeland 
security--the intransigence on the part of the President. He had an 
opportunity to sign an appropriations bill that would provide $2.5 
billion for homeland security--a total of $5.1 billion. He had an 
opportunity to sign it as an emergency. All it needed was his name. He 
had 30 days in which to consider it. He steadfastly refused to sign his 
name. This is money that is awaiting the President's signature to go 
throughout this country to aid the people at the local level in making 
preparations to avoid another terrorist attack, and to ameliorate the 
effects of such attacks if they occur.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 
seconds for each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I urge Senators to cast their vote today. I 
know most of the other side, if not all on the other side of the aisle, 
will probably vote against this amendment. We are going to lose on this 
amendment, but I thank those who have spoken for it. I thank those who 
will vote for it.
  Let me say to you that it is not how it looks today; it is how your 
vote will look 1 year from today. I urge all Senators to support my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I appreciate this amendment being put forward. I 
oppose it intensely. I have great respect for the sponsor. But I 
appreciate it being put forward because, more than any other amendment 
that we have heard or will hear on this bill, it frames the issue. The 
question that Senator Byrd's amendment forces every Senator to answer 
is, Do you want to create a Department of Homeland Security anytime 
soon? Do you have a feeling of urgency about the disorganization of our 
Federal Government's response to the terrorist threat, and do you want 
to respond to it anytime soon?
  With all respect, this amendment eviscerates the proposal that came 
out of our committee, the bipartisan proposal. As I have said earlier 
in the debate, it builds a house and leaves only the attic with a few 
people up on top. It creates an army to protect America and the rest of 
the world against terrorism with a few generals and no soldiers 
underneath.
  To say that it strengthens our proposal is like telling somebody who 
owns a house that you are strengthening their house by removing the 
foundation. It puts at issue what we have done.
  I do not see how anyone can vote for this amendment and say they are 
for adopting and creating a Department of Homeland Security soon. The 
question is, What happens after 13 months? Under our bill, as Senator 
Byrd has said, all of the agencies that are going to be part of the new 
Department have to be transferred within 13 months. To me, that means 
they are going to be operating together as a whole Department, but they 
have to be transferred.
  What happens under the amendment? All that has to happen in 13 months 
is that Congress has to act in some way, if Congress 13 months from now 
decides that it wants to act. It is kind of a moral invocation, if you 
will. It is not enforceable by anyone. That is why I say that 
ultimately not only does the amendment eviscerate the bill but it has 
no end point to it.
  Senator Byrd is right. There are Border Patrol and other agencies out 
there right now, but are they talking to each other? Are they 
coordinating their strategies? Are they integrating their databases? 
Are they meshing their command structures? Are they working adequately 
with State and local officials with the purpose of making every 
decision on every agency stronger and more effective to protect our 
Nation? The answer is no.
  In a Dear Colleague letter that Senator Byrd sent, he said similar 
things to what he said on the floor. He said that the ``amendment seeks 
to create a process by which the Congress would retain control over the 
implementation of this new Department.'' But it does so at a very high 
cost. The cost is no guarantee that the Department would be created 
anytime soon.
  I stress that the underlying proposal which came out of our committee 
does, in fact, protect the right of Congress to oversee and have great 
influence over the implementation of this new Department, first, and 
most significantly, through the appropriations process, and, second, we 
specifically rejected a call by the White House for broad authority to 
reorganize the components of the new Department notwithstanding what 
the law says now. We have said in this bill that you can only do what 
the law allows. If you want to change the law, you have to come back to 
the place where laws are made; that is, the Congress. We have required 
that every 6 months the new Secretary come back to Congress and make 
recommendations to us about any changes he or she wants to make in this 
Department.

  So the issue is clear, and the moment of truth has arrived for 
Senators. Do we want to create a Department of Homeland Security now? 
If you do, I respectfully suggest that you must vote against this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

[[Page S9065]]

  The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) and 
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 28, nays 70, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.]

                                YEAS--28

     Biden
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dayton
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--70

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Baucus
     Inouye
       
  The amendment (No. 4644) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________