[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 147 (Thursday, November 14, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11033-S11045]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S11033]]

Senate

                HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002--Continued

  Mr. BYRD [continuing]. We have done the same thing right here. This 
was concocted in secrecy in the darkness of the night. It didn't see 
the light of day until yesterday--484 pages. We are expected to pass 
this. We are expected to invoke cloture on it tomorrow and pass it and 
tell the American people they are safer after the passage of that 
monstrosity.
  No doubt there are some good things about that bill. There are some 
good things in it. Some of the provisions in this 484-page bill have 
come out of Senator Lieberman's committee's deliberations, and it 
passed. Some of these have been discussed before, but not all of them. 
There are a lot of provisions in this bill that had not seen the light 
of day until yesterday.
  The press has been kept in the dark. The press is going to realize 
all too late what has happened to the people's right to know that we 
were going to pass right here in this bill. I am going to address those 
provisions briefly in a few minutes. I hope the press will stay tuned 
because I want to point out to the press what is about to happen to the 
people's right to know.
  I have often had my differences with reporters, but I am a firm 
believer in the freedom of the press and in the responsibilities of the 
fourth estate. If the Congress is going to so willingly blindfold 
itself to the inner workings of this administration and this new 
bureaucracy, I hope the press will not be so compliant. Hear me, those 
in the fourth estate. You stay tuned. I will point out part of this 
bill in a few minutes. But if you haven't read it as yet, it is going 
to turn your stomach because you believe in the people's right to know. 
I hope it will keep a watchful eye. I am talking about the media. I 
hope the media will keep a watchful eye on this new agency. 
Unfortunately, provisions contained in this bill will make it harder 
for the fourth estate--harder for you in the press--and harder for the 
people to do so.
  I still find it difficult to believe that the American war on 
terrorism hinges on the building of a new, huge bureaucracy. Our plan 
to eradicate a vicious, cunning nest of vipers is to reorganize the 
Government.NOTICE

If the 107th Congress, 2d Session, adjourns sine die on or before 
November 22, 2002, a final issue of the Congressional Record for 
the 107th Congress, 2d Session, will be published on Monday, 
December 16, 2002, in order to permit Members to revise and extend 
their remarks.
All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and 
delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters of 
Debates (Room HT-60 or S-123 of the Capitol), Monday through 
Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. through 
Friday, December 13. The final issue will be dated Monday, December 
16, 2002, and will be delivered on Tuesday, December 17, 2002.
None of the material printed in the final issue of the 
Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or relate to any 
event that occurred after the sine die date.
Senators' statements should also be submitted electronically, 
either on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or by e-mail to 
the Official Reporters of Debates at ``[email protected]''.
Members of the House of Representatives' statements may also be 
submitted electronically by e-mail, to accompany the signed 
statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the 
Extensions of Remarks template at http://clerkhouse.house.gov. The 
Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template formatted 
electronic file only after receipt of, and authentication with, the 
hard copy, and signed manuscript. Deliver statements to the 
Official Reporters in Room 
HT-60.
Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material 
submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record may do so by 
contacting the Congressional Printing Management Division, at the 
Government Printing Office, on 512-0224, between the hours of 8:00 
a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily.
By order of the Joint Committee on Printing.
                                                                
MARK DAYTON, Chairman.

[[Page S11034]]

  

  I have read much about Senator Byrd and whether or not he would 
filibuster this bill. If I thought for a moment I could kill this bill 
here tonight by filibustering it, I would do it. But there are a lot of 
Senators here who wouldn't know a filibuster--a lot of people who 
wouldn't know a filibuster--if they met one on the way home. There are 
a lot of people who wouldn't know it if they met it in the middle of 
the road.
  I intend to stand on my feet and try to expose some of the things in 
this bill that are not going to be good for the American people and 
which will not contribute to their safety.
  Our plan to eradicate a vicious, cunning nest of vipers is to 
reorganize the Government. This is a massive reorganization. This is 
our battle plan--talking about the administration. This is its 
priority. This is our ammunition against the terrorist threat to our 
homeland.
  A certain Senator here a few days ago talked about killing snakes. He 
talked about snakes in his State. He knew snakes when he saw them. 
Well, there are some snakes in West Virginia too. I knew about those 
snakes when I walked the red clay hills of southern West Virginia in 
Mercer County. We had copperheads back in those hills in those days and 
a few rattlesnakes. There are snakes. I know a snake when I see it. I 
saw a snake in this bill. This bill is a snake. If I could chop off its 
head, kill it dead, dead, dead, I would do it.
  This 484 pages right here is what I am talking about. This is our 
initiative--this is the administration's ammunition. They know better 
than that. They know that is not going to make this homeland one whit 
safer.
  I have listened very hard. I do not hear the American people 
clamoring for us to build a new, cumbersome, bureaucratic leviathan.
  The midterm elections--despite what many of the pundits may believe--
had little to do with the creation of this new Department. The American 
people weren't clamoring for this new bureaucracy. While Americans cast 
their ballots, they may have had hopes for safer communities than 
protection from terrorism, but I sincerely doubt that they were voting 
to create a huge, new bureaucracy.
  Surely nobody believes that building a giant bureaucracy has suddenly 
become the nemesis to the threat of the acts of madmen on our people 
here at home.
  With a battle plan such as the Bush administration is proposing, 
instead of crossing the Delaware River to capture the Hessian soldiers 
on Christmas Day, George Washington would have stayed on his side of 
the river and built a bureaucracy.
  During the Civil War, President Lincoln would dismiss one general 
after another until he found one capable of building a better 
bureaucracy.
  Perhaps what we are lacking to make this new idea really resonate 
with the American people is a powerful, stimulating slogan--a dramatic 
slogan such as the kind of slogan that we politicians slap on bumper 
stickers, one that would serve to inspire and unite our soldiers and 
our citizens.
  Maybe we could draw from history to see how our new lust for a huge 
bureaucracy would fair.
  I can picture Nathan Hale saying: I regret that I have but one 
bureaucracy to lose. I regret that I have but one life to give for my 
bureaucracy.
  I can hear Captain John Paul Jones on September--I believe it was 
September 23, 1779--shouting: I have not yet begun to fight for my 
bureaucracy.
  I can think of Commodore Oliver Perry hoisting his famous flag upon 
his ship with the motto: Don't give up the bureaucracy.
  I can just imagine Commodore Stephen Decatur returning from the war 
on the Barbary Coast, offering his famous toast: My bureaucracy, right 
or wrong.
  It just gives me chills to think of the people of Texas remembering 
the Alamo and being inspired to fight with the restoring battle cry: 
Remember the bureaucracy.
  What about the professorial President Woodrow Wilson taking us into 
World War I with the proclamation: The world must be made safe for 
bureaucracy.
  I was born during his administration. Nonsense, of course. But it has 
been said that necessity is the mother of invention. I guess then that 
political expediency has now become the mother of bureaucracy.
  I don't think there is much doubt that the Senate will pass this 
legislation to restructure our homeland defense agencies. But my point 
is that the administration's plan is a sham. It is a sham. It is a 
political ploy. It worked well during the campaign. It was worked up in 
haste and for the wrong reasons.
  Homeland security is a serious and dangerous matter involving the 
lives and the livelihoods of millions of Americans. We ought to be 
ashamed of ourselves to offer our people a quick bureaucratic pacifier 
instead of taking our time and working thoughtfully and carefully on an 
effective and lasting plan for the protection of the American people.
  What we ought to be even more ashamed of, however, is the manner in 
which we are passing this bill. Prior to our recessing, hundreds of 
amendments were filed to make changes to the pending bill that had been 
reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee.
  There were hundreds of amendments up at that desk. Yet Senators are 
choosing not to call up amendments. We are told that any amendments to 
this bill would force a conference with the House.
  Now, get this. We are told that if we amend this bill, it will force 
a conference with the House of Representatives and could delay or even 
kill this bill. So Senators are being urged not to call up their 
amendments. And in many instances, they are choosing not to call up 
their amendments.
  Is the Senate afraid of its own shadow? Are we afraid to think, to 
debate, to ask questions, to stand for something? Are we afraid to 
stand for something? Are we afraid to stand against a President of the 
United States? Is the Senate afraid to stand up against an 
administration, a political administration? Is the Senate afraid? Are 
Senators afraid to stand up against the President, to be the loyal 
opposition at this time of great distress?
  It is a dangerous thing when a President believes that he is so right 
that he should be given any and all powers he deems necessary to 
achieve his ends. That is a dangerous thing. It is dangerous when a 
President believes that he possesses the people's consent to freely 
tamper with their rights and their liberties.
  But it is considerably more dangerous when the elected officials such 
as ourselves, whose duty it is to protect the people's liberties 
against the excesses of an overreaching Executive, an overreaching 
White House, accede to a President's every request. Shame on us. Shame 
on us.
  And it is even worse when we not only fail to impose restraint but 
actually aid and abet the Executive in a brazen power grab. That is 
exactly what this is.
  The American people feel unsettled. They are nervous. They are 
jittery. They are scared. And they have every right to be. Their 
President has spent months and loads of taxpayers' dollars frightening 
them. Their Government has issued an unceasing proliferation of 
warnings about potential violence.
  But the threats to our homeland go well beyond terrorist attacks. Our 
Nation is threatened, perhaps most seriously threatened, by a mentality 
that says that Presidents should have a free hand to do whatever they 
deem necessary whenever they deem to do it as necessary.
  Our President has been speaking a great deal in recent months about 
our enemies and how they hate our freedoms. Mr. President, I doubt that 
they hate our freedoms. They hate our arrogance. They do not hate our 
freedoms. They hate our arrogance.
  Our President has made protecting our freedoms a rallying cry. I have 
been working at protecting our freedoms for 50 years in this Congress. 
Fifty years come January 3 I have been working at protecting our 
freedoms. I have been helping to appropriate the moneys for our men and 
our women who serve in our military services.
  The President has touched a raw nerve with the public, in speech 
after speech after speech about foreign terrorists who are attacking 
their liberties, and yet, in many ways, it is this President's 
proposals that are the most serious threats to the liberties of 
Americans.

[[Page S11035]]

  We should be standing up and fighting for what is right in this 
legislation. That is the place to start to fight. That is where we 
start to fight to protect this land of ours, these people of ours, its 
institutions, the institutions of our country.

  We should be standing up and fighting for what is right in this 
legislation. We talk about justice. Justice is fine. But what is right? 
We should be debating, offering amendments, and telling the American 
people like it is. We should be honest enough to admit that this new 
Department is a massive undertaking that is far more likely to provide 
political security for its proponents than to provide domestic security 
for the American people out there, at least for the foreseeable future.
  I do not believe this is a time for us or for the American people to 
cower in a corner. I do not believe this is a time for the elected 
representatives of the American people to run like whipped dogs. This 
is a time for us to seize the power that was established for us by the 
courageous Founders of our Nation.
  Mr. President, were it not for this Constitution, which I hold in my 
hand, you would not be presiding over this body at this moment. I say 
that to every Senator who sits in this body. And I say that for the 
people on the staffs of Senators. You would not be here. You would not 
be here, I would not be here were it not for this Constitution and for 
the great compromise--talk about a compromise--the great compromise 
which was entered into on July 16, 1787, out of which came this Senate, 
and the equality of votes of every State that is represented in this 
body.
  This is not a time to be voiceless. This is not a time to be silent. 
This is not a time to vote for cloture and to hurry away home. This is 
not a time to give in and to give up on the ideals that led to the 
creation of our country.
  Far too many Americans failed to go to the polls on election day and 
vote--far too many. I spoke of Nathan Hale, who said: ``I only regret 
that I have but one life to lose for my country.'' And how many 
Americans did not even walk around the corner to cast a vote? They did 
not give one vote for their country. Far too many felt that the outcome 
of the election was beyond their control, that their votes would make 
no difference.
  Today, I see far too many Members in this Senate falling into the 
same desultory way of thinking. Our votes matter, if we have the guts 
to make them matter. But, no, we are going to tuck our tails between 
our legs and run like whipped dogs and vote for cloture and go home. 
That is not right.
  The American people have a right to know what is in these 484 pages. 
My constituents have a right to know. Your constituents, Mr. President, 
have a right to know. The constituents of every Senator on both sides 
of the aisle have a right to know what is in this bill.
  We Senators have a right to know what is in this bill. We Senators 
ought to insist that we not invoke cloture on tomorrow but that we 
wait. Invoking cloture is all right down the road somewhere, maybe a 
week from now, but we ought to take the time to study this bill. Our 
staffs ought to know what is in this bill. We ought to know what is in 
this bill before we cast our votes.
  Yes, I admit the handwriting on the wall is all too obvious. But I 
will do what is right in my frail way of thinking and seeing things. I 
will vote against this bill, unless it is amended--unless it is 
amended.
  (Mr. CORZINE assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. BYRD. I will probably vote against it, anyhow, because we are 
being pressured into voting for something that has not had a committee 
hearing, not a single hearing, 484 pages. There has not been a single 
hearing on this bill. There have been no witnesses called to testify in 
support of this bill. There have been no witnesses who have had an 
opportunity to stand before a committee and oppose this bill.
  That is no way to legislate. Yet we are going to pass one of the most 
far-reaching pieces of legislation that we have passed in my 50 years 
in Congress.
  It will provide for a massive shift of power. To whom? To the 
President of the United States. If he were a Democrat, I would oppose 
this just as vociferously, just as strongly, just as bitterly as I 
oppose this piece of legislation right here. I don't oppose it because 
we have a Republican President. I am going to oppose it because it 
gives away the powers of the people. It provides for a massive shift of 
power to the executive branch. It upsets that delicate balance of power 
the Framers provided to the American people over 200 years ago.
  The popularity of a President is a fleeting thing, a fleeting thing. 
Our duty to our Nation is not.
  One serious problem with the legislation before the Senate is the 
expanded authority it gives to the executive branch to conduct its 
actions in secret. Here is where I hope the press, the fourth estate, 
will pay close attention.
  I have great respect for a free press. I have not always been happy 
with what the free press has written about me, but in my 50 years, I 
think overall the press has been very fair to me. I have no complaints. 
Some of the things the press has said that I didn't like I deserved. I 
am for a free press.
  One serious problem with the legislation currently before the Senate 
is the expanded authority that this legislation gives to the executive 
branch to conduct its actions in secret, protected from the oversight, 
protected from the scrutiny of the Congress, the media, and the 
American people.
  An example of this expanded secrecy that has been added in this new 
bill can be found in the exemptions that it provides from the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act. This is section 871 of the new substitute that 
we have just been given, the substitute that fell like manna from 
heaven. But this didn't come from heaven, I can assure you. It fell 
into our laps about 48 hours ago without any warning, and we are asked 
to invoke cloture on this thing tomorrow.
  Let me say that again. An example of this expanded secrecy that has 
been added in this new bill can be found in the exemptions it provides 
from the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Section 871 of this new 
substitute we have just been given provides the Secretary of Homeland 
Security blanket authority--get that, blanket authority--to exempt all 
advisory committees in the Department from existing public disclosure 
rules.
  That is pretty serious. This provision was not included in Senator 
Lieberman's substitute, but it has been slipped into this new bill 
which was made available to us, as I said, late Tuesday night of this 
week. I am told it was 5 in the morning. It appeared on the web site of 
the House Rules Committee, I believe, the night before, Tuesday night. 
It was made available to us just within these last 48 hours with the 
hope that Senators will not have enough time to scrutinize 
this dramatic change to an existing statute.

  The statute I am talking about here, the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, applies to the ad hoc committees that are often used in the 
executive branch to formulate policy. This statute, the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, which has been on the books for 30 years now, 
requires the advice provided by these advisory committees is objective 
and accessible to the public.
  The purpose of making this information available to the public is to 
allow the Congress, the media, and groups outside of Government to know 
how the executive branch is making important policy decisions. The role 
of this oversight and scrutiny from the public and a free press is 
central to upholding the principles of our government, of our 
constitutional system. It ensures that the people--the people--will be 
the ultimate judges of the wisdom of the policies of the Federal 
Government.
  I understand this new Homeland Security Department will be wrestling 
with many issues of national security that should not be subjected to 
public disclosure rules. Sometimes these advisory committees will be 
dealing with classified intelligence information or with sensitive 
security policy, and making this information available to the public 
might compromise national security and the fight against terrorism. I 
understand that. But that is exactly why existing law allows the 
President of the United States, be he a Democrat or a Republican, to 
waive these public disclosure rules for any advisory committee for 
national security reasons.
  The President can do that on a case-by-case basis in the current law. 
So the President has this authority today. He

[[Page S11036]]

will have it tomorrow. And he will be able to use it to protect any 
advisory committee in the Homeland Security Department from having to 
disclose information when national security information is involved. 
But he will be accountable for that. He will be responsible for that.
  So why do we see an expansion of this authority given to the 
Secretary in this bill? Why do we see an expansion of this authority 
given to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in this 
bill?
  Advisory committees can already be exempted from public disclosure 
rules for national security reasons by the President on a case-by-case 
basis. So why does this bill, then, allow the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to exempt any committee, regardless of whether national 
security is pertinent?
  Why is it in there? Why do we see this new blanket authority in this 
bill? I will tell you why. It is because this administration wants to 
shield itself from any scrutiny of the public. This administration has 
made it very clear that it does not want anyone meddling in executive 
branch decisions--not the Congress, not the media, not the American 
public.
  Since the first day this administration took office, all we have seen 
is a concerted effort to prevent outside criticism of its policies and 
conduct. The White House has refused to share information or cooperate 
with the Congress at every turn--maybe not at every turn, but at all 
too many turns.
  The Vice President has refused to release documents concerning a 
secret energy working group, even after court orders demanding that he 
do so. We have read in the newspapers that the Attorney General is 
trying to expand the powers of the Justice Department to operate in 
secret, appealing another court decision that rejected his new secrecy 
rule. Even Tom Ridge, the President's top man in the war on terrorism, 
refused to testify before Congress about the steps that the 
administration was taking to protect the American people.
  With the President's support, top officials in this administration 
have stonewalled Congress--stonewalled the Congress. Tom Ridge 
stonewalled the Appropriations Committee of the U.S. Senate. I know; I 
am the chairman of that committee. Invitation after invitation was 
extended by my colleague, Senator Stevens, and myself for him to appear 
before the Appropriations Committee to testify. The answer was no. With 
the President's support, top officials in the administration have 
stonewalled Congress, stonewalled the media, and they have stonewalled 
the American public. Now they are hoping to expand their ability to 
operate in secret, to allow even less public scrutiny. There it is. It 
is in the bill.
  The provisions in the bill allow the Secretary to use ad hoc advisory 
committees to craft policy in secret, without making specific findings 
that such secrecy is necessary in any particular instance. This 
unnecessary new blanket authority will give the President carte blanche 
to expand the culture of secrecy that now permeates this White House.
  This substitute language that we have just been given also provides 
the same blanket exemption from disclosure rules for the Justice 
Department's new Office of Science and Technology. This new exemption 
will allow John Ashcroft, the Attorney General, to conduct even more of 
his duties in secret, even after the courts and the press have recently 
rebuked the Justice Department for secrecy abuses. This Senate is being 
asked to authorize the Attorney General to cloak even more of the 
Justice Department's activities in secrecy.
  I am worried that exempting this new Science and Technology Office 
will allow the Justice Department to provide special treatment for 
corporate campaign contributors who are pushing new technologies.
  Let me say that again. I am worried that exempting this new Science 
and Technology Office will allow the Justice Department to provide 
special treatment for corporate campaign contributors who are pushing 
new technologies. These exemptions are unnecessary and they are a 
danger to our people's liberty.

  I believe that I have a duty to the people I represent to do what I 
can to improve this legislation. So I hope to offer an amendment to 
strike these exemptions from the bill. I will do whatever I can do to 
improve the legislation and keep the people and the press from being 
locked out of the process. The people have a right to know.
  I am not among those who are willing to let this Senate be beaten 
into rubber stamping the language sent to us by the House. It is our 
job as legislators to see that the Senate protects the interests of the 
people who sent us here and who will foot the bill for this behemoth 
department.
  The public disclosure exemptions in this bill are a license for 
abuse. I do not believe that they are worthy of the Senate's approval. 
So I am doing everything I can to see that this Senate does not roll 
over at the command of any President--whether he is a Democrat or a 
Republican or an Independent--when there are dangerous provisions 
remaining in this bill that ought not be put into law.
  These issues are too fundamental to let slide with the vain hope that 
we will get a chance to revisit them next year. Don't forget, it is 
easier to pass a law than it is to repeal that law. We only need a 
majority in each body to pass a law and have the President sign it. 
Once that law is on the books, in order to repeal it, a President can 
veto the repeal. And, then, if only one-third plus one in either body 
uphold that President's veto, that is the end of it. There won't be any 
repeal.
  The Senate must act, and act responsibly, and we ought not to be in 
all that hurry to pass this legislation.
  Having been up until almost 2 o'clock this morning, I am tired. I 
want to speak a little longer. I won't be able to speak tomorrow. The 
Senate is going to vote on cloture in the morning. And as I wet my 
finger and hold it to the wind, I sense that the pressure is going to 
be on tomorrow to invoke cloture on this bill.
  Here it is, 484 pages. It has only seen the light of 2 days--
yesterday and today. It has not been before a committee; there has not 
been a single hearing on this bill; not a single witness has appeared 
before any committee in support of this 484-page bill. I doubt that any 
Senator in this body knows everything there is to know about this bill. 
I do believe that the great majority of Senators know very little about 
this bill, and what little most Senators know about this bill comes 
about as a result of some of the provisions in the bill that have been 
lifted out of the legislation that was reported out of Senator 
Lieberman's committee when the bill was reported earlier this year.
  Mr. President, the pressure is on. We are going to be asked to vote 
for cloture tomorrow. I will be surprised if the Senate does not vote 
for cloture. But I appeal to Senators on both sides of the aisle not to 
vote for cloture. Nathan Hale regretted that he had but one life to 
lose for his country. I hope Senators will take the same view about 
their responsibilities to the people.
  They have a responsibility to stay until they know what is in this 
bill, and not to invoke cloture on it until they know what is in it, 
until their staffs know what is in it, and until they, Senators, have 
had an opportunity to offer amendments to make corrections in the bill.
  I daresay many Senators will find provisions in this bill they have 
not seen in any bill before, that are new to this bill, that are new to 
the Senate, and that they, those Senators, dislike. They have a duty to 
their constituents. I do not have to tell other Senators what their 
duties are to their constituents. They have the same duties to their 
constituents that I have to my constituents. But I have a duty to my 
constituents not to roll over and play dead, not to roll over and 
appear to be oblivious to what is in the bill, just pass it and go home 
and say: We have passed a bill creating the Department of Homeland 
Security. Whoopee. This will make us all safer.
  This will not make us one whit, not one tiny whit safer.
  That bill, if it passed tomorrow, would not be implemented for 
another year. It will take another 12 months before it is implemented. 
The same people who will be out there protecting the homes of the 
American people a year from today, if they are out there a year from 
today, will be out there tomorrow. They are out there tonight.

[[Page S11037]]

They are out there on the borders--the northern border, the southern 
border--the Atlantic coastline, the Pacific coastline, the gulf 
coastline, the ports of this country, the ports of entry.
  They are out there tonight protecting the airports. They are 
protecting the ports of entry all over this country. They are 
protecting the nuclear facilities, the nuclear plants. They are 
standing at their stations in the law enforcement agencies. They are 
standing at their stations in the fire departments. They are standing 
at their stations in the health departments. They are out there now. 
They are out there tonight. When I go home to sleep tonight and pray 
the Lord my soul to keep, they will be out there. I will be asleep; 
they will be there.
  This bill is not what is putting them there. They are already there, 
and they are being put there by the taxpayers' money that flows through 
the Appropriations Committee in this Senate. So they are there. Do not 
think for a moment that this country has to have this bill creating 
this massive bureaucracy in which there will be at least 28 agencies 
that will be crammed into a new Department--170,000 people employed.
  May I say to the people sitting back here on the benches--I am 
talking to these staff people right back here--pay attention here--
170,000 people employed in this new agency. They are not employed by 
virtue of these 484 pages in this bill.
  The Senate apparently is on a path to rush to consider this 
legislation, and we can all say: Whoopee, let's go home now. We have 
created a Department of Homeland Security. Everybody is safer now.
  But don't you believe it.
  The Senate's legislative counsel did not finish drafting this 
behemoth bill until the wee hours of yesterday morning, and now 
Senators are being pressured to pass it without question and without 
comment. What a shabby way to treat the security and safety of the 
American people, those people who are looking right at us through those 
electronic lenses.
  As I have said all along, this new Department likely will take many 
years to become effective. We should not simply put a new name on a 
hodgepodge of agencies and claim that the Nation is, ipso facto, 
instantly safer. What a sham. What a sham. A lot of Senators who vote 
for this are going to come to realize that when it is too late to 
change their votes. What a sham. Yet this legislation is being bull-
rushed through Congress and is being hailed as the great homeland 
security panacea.

  This new bill is 484 pages long. Here it is. I have not weighed it, 
but it weighs as heavy as 484 pages. Yet we will not be one whit closer 
to homeland security if it passes.
  If the House and Senate wanted to provide true protections, we would 
be working to complete action on the appropriations bills instead of 
playing this gargantuan shell game. If the President wanted to do more 
than score political points in a rehashed retread of a stump speech, he 
would loose the bonds, he would cut the handcuffs from the House 
leadership and urge them to pass appropriations bills which contain 
critical homeland security funds that could provide real protection for 
our people, and provide it quickly.
  Those dollars could make a difference today. Those dollars and the 
protections they would fund could save people's lives. We need not wait 
for a new Department to set up yet another huge bureaucracy. Instead, 
the House leadership is stuck in concrete. The appropriations bills may 
never see the light of day. There are 11 of them--11 of them--that have 
been reported from the Senate Appropriations Committee. They may never 
see the light of day, and the security of American people continues to 
be at risk.
  How many tape recordings of Osama bin Laden do we need to hear before 
we start to take immediate action to protect ourselves in a meaningful 
way, not in a sham, sham legislative procedure that will produce 
another massive bill, massive shift of power, in a massive new 
bureaucracy? How many more threats do we need to hear? How many more 
threats need to be made?
  Just in recent times, in recent hours the newspapers are reporting 
that U.S. intelligence officials believe that terrorist groups may be 
planning a new wave of attacks on Western targets. According to these 
reports, our intelligence agencies have detected a significant spike in 
intelligence chatter during the last 10 days that strongly indicate new 
assaults are being planned.
  What more warning do we need? Do we have to wait until the chatter 
turns into screams of terror? Do we really believe this new Department 
of Homeland Security will provide the immediate protections that are so 
desperately needed? We are not only fooling ourselves, we are also 
jeopardizing the lives of the American people.
  The new Department of Homeland Security will provide no immediate 
security--none. The legislation gives the President another year in 
which to put the pieces of this Department together. That is a year 
without any significant improvements to our Nation's protections. Maybe 
we should rename this the Department of Homeland Security Delay.
  The appropriations bills, on the other hand, that are languishing in 
the other body controlled by the President's party would provide real 
security right now. All we have to do is just enact them.
  The Senate Appropriations Committee reported appropriations bills for 
fiscal year 2003 that contained a total of $25.6 billion for homeland 
defense funding.
  That is a lot of money, $25.6 billion for homeland defense. That is 
real money for the real defense of our homeland that could be available 
now, under our committee-reported bill, if the House Republican 
leadership on the other side of the Capitol could get White House 
permission to complete action on those appropriations bills. It could 
be done now.
  The House is getting ready to leave town. They do not have to leave 
town. They could stay in town. We ought to pass those appropriations 
bills. That is money available now to protect lives and prevent future 
attacks. But under this constant stream of continuing resolutions, many 
homeland defense investments cannot take place.
  The Commerce Justice State appropriations bill, the Treasury 
appropriations bill, the Agriculture appropriations bill, the VA/HUD 
appropriations bill, the Labor, Health and Human Services 
appropriations bill, these are fancy names that probably do not mean 
that much to anyone listening, but to the security and safety of the 
American people, these bills mean a whole lot more than a new 
letterhead on the same old Government stationery, which will come about 
as a result of the passage of this 484-page bill.
  Instead, we are being told to create this new bureaucracy and put 
funding for homeland security on autopilot with a constant stream of 
continuing resolutions. It is an irresponsible path and one I hope 
Congress has the wisdom to avoid. The Senate's VA/HUD and Commerce 
Justice State appropriations bills provide more than $3.5 billion for 
police officers, for firefighters, and for other first responders. That 
is $3.5 billion that could be made available next week. All that has to 
be done is for the House to get the signal from the executive branch 
which controls the Republican leadership in the House. All that is 
needed is for the White House to unloose the shackles that are on the 
House leadership and say, pass that appropriations bill. We restored 
over $1 billion of cuts the President proposed for State and local law 
enforcement programs. That is real safety, without any delay.

  What is the administration's response? The administration says we are 
spending too much money on the security of the American people.
  Mr. President, you cannot place a price tag on homeland security. You 
cannot protect lives on the cheap.
  The Senate Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill 
provides $3.8 billion to protect against biological and chemical 
weapons. We know that terrorists have them. We are fools if we do not 
invest in defenses against these weapons. The funds in these 
appropriations bills help to provide real savings now, without delay. 
You do not have to wait on passing a 484-page bill which cannot be 
implemented for another 12 months.
  What is the President's response? Hold the line on the 
appropriations, he says. Hold the line. He has stopped the House 
Republican leadership from allowing these investments in homeland 
security to move forward.

[[Page S11038]]

  Mr. President--I am talking to the President at the other end of the 
avenue--you cannot place a price tag on homeland security. You cannot 
protect lives on the cheap.
  The Senate Agriculture appropriations bill includes more than $150 
million for the Food and Drug Administration to ensure our food supply 
is protected from terrorism and to accelerate the development and 
approval of medicines and tests to protect Americans from bioterrorism 
agents. This is a real saving. There is no delay here. Just pass the 
appropriations bill. We stand ready. But the administration has the 
handcuffs on the House leadership.
  Apparently the administration thinks a safe food supply and vaccines 
to counter anthrax are too expensive. I say once again, a price tag 
cannot be placed on homeland security. You cannot protect lives on the 
cheap.
  Take the Senate Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill. It funds 
new FBI agents. The Treasury appropriations bill funds critical border 
security initiatives. These bills represent billions of dollars for 
homeland security. They help to provide real safety without delay, but 
regrettably the White House says no deal. According to this 
administration, the price is too high.
  In my 50 years in Congress, if the Lord lets me live a few more days, 
this is the most cynical and potentially most devastating political 
game any administration has ever played. I am talking about 
administrations under Republican Presidents and under Democratic 
Presidents.
  While funding battles are not uncommon and while many Congresses and 
administrations have not agreed on all the priorities, there has never 
been such a dispute that threatens the security of the American people. 
This administration would rather protect its political backside than 
the lives of this Nation's citizens. It is a calculated, cynical, 
manipulative, and irresponsible approach that I pray does not result in 
lost lives.
  It disgusts me that the President has worked with the House 
Republican leadership to delay these appropriations bills. That is 
exactly what has happened. You mark my word. After the new year, when 
there is a new administration that takes over and this body goes under 
Republican control, as the other body will be under Republican control, 
you watch how fast those appropriations bill will pass. They will then 
pass, and this administration will be able to say; see now how things 
work under this new administration, how fast we get things done. I 
think that is the game we will see.

  In fact, at the administration's urging, the House of Representatives 
has not considered a regular appropriations bill in 16 weeks. That is 4 
months. And the White House machinations have not stopped at the 
regular appropriations bills. At the direction of the administration, 
$8.9 billion for homeland security investments were squeezed out of 
supplemental appropriations bills approved unanimously by the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, made up of 15 Democrats and 14 Republicans. 
If the President were serious about homeland security, we would do far 
more than simply pass a feel-good bill of 484 pages that creates a new 
department. We would pass these appropriations bills. We would train 
our first responders. We would provide them with equipment to carry out 
their mission of protecting the American people. We would put more 
agents on the borders. We would close the security loopholes in our 
ports. We would buy vaccines and increase our capacity to handle an 
attack using a biological weapon. We would invest in immediate homeland 
security initiatives and not rely on a campaign slogan to protect us 6 
months or 1 year or even 5 years from now.
  I hope we will not try to sell the American people this bill of goods 
on homeland security. It is nothing but snake oil. A new department 
would be welcome, but it will not be enough. We need to do much more 
and we need to do it quickly.
  The Senate Appropriations Committee reported appropriations bills for 
fiscal year 2003 that contained a total of $25.6 billion for non-DOD 
homeland defense funding, an increase of $5 billion over the levels 
approved last year. That is real money for the defense of our homeland 
that could be available now, under our committee-reported bills for 
fiscal year 2003, if the White House would but take off the shackles 
from the House Appropriations Committee and let it work, let it 
complete action on the bills in the regular manner.

  This authorizing bill we are debating right now provides nothing 
immediately for homeland defense. It has a 12-month transition period 
built into it. It sounds good. It will make a good headline. But it 
does nothing immediately to increase the security of our country. The 
appropriations bills, on the other hand, would do something 
immediately. Right now, all we have to do is enact. That is real money 
for real protection.
  Under the continuing resolution we are operating under now, the 
significant increases for homeland defense funding that we approved in 
our committee bills cannot take place. Let me give some examples of 
what will not be funded under the continuing resolution.
  Under the continuing resolution, only $651 million will be available 
for the Office of Domestic Preparedness to train and equip State and 
local law enforcement personnel to handle biological and chemical 
weapons, this compared to $2 billion that would be available in the 
Senate Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill. Crucial bioterrorism 
research will be postponed. The Senate Labor-HHS appropriations bill 
provided nearly $1.5 billion for bioterrorism activities at the 
National Institutes of Health. This would fund research and 
infrastructure improvements necessary to develop countermeasures 
against smallpox, anthrax, and other deadly pathogens. Bioterrorism 
funding for NIH under a long-term continuing resolution would be 
limited to approximately $107 million.
  The fiscal year 2003 Senate bill contains a large increase for 
hospital preparedness funding. Why worry about local hospitals? Again, 
just today news accounts detail a warning from the FBI to hospitals in 
Houston, San Francisco, Chicago, and Washington, DC, that they may be 
targets of a terrorist threat perhaps from anthrax. That is getting 
close to home, Washington, DC. The $593 million worth of grants in the 
Senate appropriations bill are necessary to make sure hospitals have 
the proper equipment, the staff, and the training to handle a 
bioterrorism attack. A long-term continuing resolution, however, would 
provide only $129 million in fiscal year 2003 for this activity. In 
total, a long-term continuing resolution for the Labor-HHS bill would 
provide only $1.8 billion for bioterrorism preparedness in fiscal year 
2003. This is $2 billion less than the committee-reported 
appropriations bill. What a difference.
  Under the continuing resolution, only $540 million would be available 
to local fire departments, from FEMA, for training and equipping 
firemen for weapons of mass destruction. For fiscal year 2003, the 
Senate committee VA-HUD appropriations bill provided a total of $900 
million for the fire grant program.
  On September 11, 2001, in New York City, we learned that fire and 
police could not communicate by radio, undermining the response to 
those vicious terrorist attacks. This is a nationwide problem. We found 
that out as we conducted testimony on our appropriations bills earlier 
this year in hearings conducted by the Senate Appropriations Committee. 
We included $180 million in the committee bill for grants for 
interoperable communications equipment for firefighters, none of which 
would be available under the continuing resolution. Under the 
continuing resolution, $180 million that the committee approved for 
grants to upgrade State and local emergency operation centers would not 
be funded and $75 million for grants to upgrade FEMA's 28 research and 
rescue teams would not be funded.

  The Coast Guard is also one of the largest agencies to be included in 
the new Department of Homeland Security. The Coast Guard just signed 
the largest procurement contract in the history of the entire 
Department of Transportation, the so-called deep water capability 
replacement project. It is a comprehensive effort to modernize the 
Coast Guard's aging fleet of ships, planes, and helicopters so that the 
agency can better execute its homeland security and other missions.

[[Page S11039]]

  Under the continuing resolution--that is what we will be operating 
under--the Coast Guard will have to start delaying the procurement of 
long-range aircraft as soon as December. In fact, due to the absence of 
adequate funding, the Coast Guard will have to start paying contract 
penalties totaling $500,000 per month.
  So at the same time as the Coast Guard is being merged into the new 
homeland security agency, the inadequate funding provided under the 
continuing resolution will mean the Coast Guard will delay the 
procurement of critical homeland security aircraft while simultaneously 
wasting half a million of the taxpayers' dollars every month on 
contract penalties.
  The Senate committee Treasury-general government bill added $18 
million to the Customs Service for container security administration. 
This funding allows for inspection of shipping containers before they 
reach U.S. ports. Currently, only 2 percent of the containers that come 
into this country are inspected. Yet this funding will not be available 
under the continuing resolution.
  The Senate committee energy and water bill includes $64 million to 
provide for the security guards at critical Corps of Engineer 
infrastructure sites. Under a long-term continuing resolution, this 
funding would not be available. Pass the appropriations bill. There is 
the money. It is available.
  This Congress faces a choice. Despite its myriad problems, we will 
likely pass this legislation to create a Department of Homeland 
Security. The President will make his speeches to try to convince the 
American people to feel good. My, we can feel good about this new 
Department we will have created. What the President will not tell the 
American people is that the shiny new Department will not be effective 
until far into the future. What he will not tell the American people is 
that in the interim, they--the American people--may be less safe rather 
than more safe because of the chaos and confusion inherent in massive 
Government reorganizations. What he will not tell the American people 
is that he continues--he, the President--to block investments that 
would help to protect the American people from terrorist attacks today.
  If we truly want to protect our constituents, if we truly want to 
make a difference in our constituents' lives, we will provide the funds 
that are so critically needed. We will support the FBI. We will support 
the police officers. The funds will support our firefighters in our 
hometown. We will strengthen our border patrols and our port security. 
We will take steps to fight terrorism today. We will not wait until the 
station is ready at the new Department of Homeland Security. The price 
of continued delay is simply too great to fathom.

  Mr. President:

       The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
       Moves on; nor all your Piety nor Wit
       Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
       Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.

  So, Mr. President, tonight I am writing the record. I will not have 
that opportunity tomorrow because on tomorrow the Senate will vote to 
invoke cloture. I urge Senators not to do that, not to vote to invoke 
cloture tomorrow. Senators should give themselves more time, give their 
staffs more time to study these 484 pages in this new bill, this bill 
that has not seen a committee witness, this bill that has not been in a 
committee room, this bill that was unknown to the Members of this 
Senate 48 hours ago--a massive bill providing for a massive shift of 
power to the President of the United States. And once that power is 
shifted, Senators, remember, it is going to be very difficult to 
retrieve that power. Yet the legislative branch is just about to do 
that.
  The executive branch never hesitates to stand up in defense of its 
prerogatives. The judicial branch never hesitates to stand up in 
defense of its prerogatives. But the same cannot be said of the 
legislative branch. Nearly always in the legislative branch, half of 
the branch is made up of supporters of the administration. If it were a 
monarchy, these would be supporters of the king. If it were in the days 
of the Revolution, they would be Tories. Half the legislative branch 
stands up in the defense of the king, in the defense of the executive 
branch. Only half, if that many, stand up in defense of the legislative 
branch. Yet we all in this legislative branch, whether we are members 
of the party that controls the administration or not, we stand before 
that desk up there and we lift our hand to Almighty God and we put a 
hand upon the Holy Bible and we swear an oath to support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and 
domestic.
  Are we doing that? Are we supporting and defending this Constitution 
which provides for a balance of powers, a separation of powers, three 
departments equally balanced? Is that what we are supporting? That is 
what we swore to support. That is what we swore we would support. But 
not all of us are going to vote that way.
  There are half of us in the two bodies, roughly speaking, who are 
always ready to run to the executive branch and uphold the executive 
branch against our own nest, against the legislative branch. I hope it 
will not be that way tomorrow. I hope that Senators will say whoa, 
whoa, whoa, just hold on here; let's just wait a little bit. Let's 
don't vote for cloture today. Let's have a few more days to debate this 
legislation, see what's in it, offer amendments to it, clean it up, 
protect the American people, their liberties and their rights. I call 
upon Senators to do that.
  I have watched the Senate floor today. I have heard the assertion 
made that the Senate has been considering the pending homeland security 
bill for 7 weeks now. Let's be clear about that. The Senate just 
received this homeland security bill, not 7 weeks ago but just the 
night before yesterday. We have had access to it for 36 to 48 hours, 
perhaps. The Senate did spend 7 weeks debating another homeland 
security bill, but that bill is no longer before the Senate. That bill 
is no longer before the Senate. All of those weeks of debate and 
amendments have been thrown out the window. In its place we are now 
debating a new bill, crafted in secret, crafted behind the shades and 
curtains of darkness; a new bill which many of us have not had the time 
to read because we just received it. I haven't had time to read it. I 
have only read parts of it. I haven't had time to read this bill.

  We were not involved in drafting this bill. I had nothing to do with 
the drafting of that bill. It did not go through the committee process. 
There were no hearings, no markups. It was drafted, not unlike the 
President's plan, behind closed doors and hidden away from the eyes of 
the American public. So I must say I am a little distressed when I hear 
Senators saying that the Congress should pass this bill quickly because 
we have exhausted debate on it.
  I grow even more distressed when I read in this morning's papers that 
a number of controversial provisions had been quietly inserted into 
this new bill in the hopes that no one would notice them before the 
bill passed.
  Congress Daily reported this morning that provisions have been 
inserted into this bill to eliminate or reduce a manufacturer's product 
liability. Sure enough, title VIII of the new bill would authorize the 
new Homeland Security Secretary to provide manufacturers with liability 
protections for a broad range of items, from drugs to life preservers, 
in case such equipment malfunctions or does not work. According to the 
Democratic staff of the Governmental Affairs Committee, even if 
manufacturers sold equipment, technology, or drugs that they knew would 
not work as intended, the manufacturer could not be held liable for 
punitive damages unless he knowingly participated in the terrorist act 
giving rise to the injuries.
  Do Senators know that? Do Senators know that this bill does just 
that? Exactly. Do Senators know that?
  Congress Daily reports that limited liability protections already in 
place for vaccines would be expanded in this bill to include vaccine 
components such as the preservative Thimerosal, manufactured by Eli 
Lilly and Company. These drugs, I am informed, are already the subject 
of class action lawsuits by parents who claim the product's high 
mercury levels have caused their children's autism.
  I have heard other Senators expressing dismay about these provisions 
that have been slipped into this bill. I have heard other Senators 
expressing puzzlement, dismay, consternation, surprise--to find such 
provisions, to find

[[Page S11040]]

this bill as it is. And yet we are being asked to invoke cloture 
tomorrow, invoke cloture so that we limit ourselves in future debate to 
30 hours, a total of 30 hours on this bill.
  The American people out there don't know this. The American people 
are being told that this is a great bill, this is a good bill, we are 
about to create a Department of Homeland Security and you will all be 
safer, ladies and gentlemen, out there in the hills and the prairies 
and the valleys and the mountains. You will all be safer.

  The American people are being hoodwinked. We are complicitous in 
going along with the idea--going along with this sham. We are all 
guilty of going along with this. Yet we are going to invoke cloture on 
ourselves. We are going to invoke the gag rule.
  We hear that this Senate is the greatest deliberative body in the 
world--greatest deliberative body in the world, the Senate of the 
United States. Yet we have been on this bill now parts of 2 days--just 
parts--and tomorrow morning we are going to put the gag rule on. We are 
going to invoke cloture so that we will deprive ourselves of the 
opportunity and we will deprive ourselves willingly of the opportunity 
to expose the weaknesses of this bill--to expose to the people who send 
us here, the judges of our political fortunes. We are going to say no 
to the people who send us here when we put this gag rule into effect 
and say to ourselves that we are not going to be interested in debating 
this longer than 30 hours, if that much time is used. We are saying to 
the American people who send us here we are putting the gag rule on 
you. We are putting the blindfolder on you.
  How many of us would like to go to the American people in the next 
campaign for reelection and tell them that we believe in blindfolding 
them, and we don't believe they should know what is in this bill. It 
has some good provisions, I am sure, but we are willing to shut 
ourselves off here.
  This is a bad bill--bad because there are some provisions in it that 
are bad--not all but some provisions in it are bad. Some provisions we 
don't even know about. We intend to vote on it--pig in a poke, 
blindfold ourselves, gag ourselves. We are willing to do that.
  Are we willing to draw our moneys, our salaries? The American people 
pay us to represent them, to protect them, to protect their liberties, 
to protect their Constitution. If the American people knew that there 
were certain provisions in here of which some Senators were just 
becoming aware, the American people would say to all of us: Hold up. 
Take a look at that bill. Don't you vote for that homeland security 
bill until you fully know what you are doing. They would say: Hold up 
here. Don't you come back to me asking for my vote again if you are 
going to vote to hoodwink the American people by shutting off debate so 
you can get out of there, so you can go home. We ought to be right 
here. Here is where we ought to be until we know what is in this bill. 
We ought not pass this bill now. We ought to pass the appropriations 
bills that provide real homeland security for the American people.
  So these drugs, as I say, are already the subject of class action 
lawsuits by parents who claim the products with high mercury levels 
have caused their children's autism. Is this what the President's 
homeland security proposal is really all about--exempting multibillion-
dollar pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits when the products they 
sell to the American public do not function properly or, even worse, 
injure or kill somebody--multibillion-dollar companies from lawsuits 
when the technological products they sell to the American people do not 
function properly? What is this? Is this a payoff for those companies 
for their contributions in the past election?
  Yet another provision in the bill would require liability claims 
against smallpox vaccine manufacturers to go through the Federal tort 
system.
  Let me say that again.
  Yet another provision in the bill would require liability claims 
against smallpox vaccine manufacturers to go through the Federal tort 
system. The Federal Government would pay the damages. And punitive 
damages would be banned.

  The new bill also would limit liabilities for airport screening 
companies and high-tech firms that develop equipment for domestic 
security. It would aid the airline industry by extending aviation war-
risk insurance for a year, and giving airports another year to install 
baggage screening equipment.
  I wonder how many Senators know that provision is in this bill.
  According to the New York Times, the bill would reverse an earlier 
measure and allow American companies that have moved offshore in order 
to evade taxes to contract with the Homeland Security Department.
  How about that? How many Senators know that? Let me say that again.
  The bill would reverse an earlier measure and allow American 
companies that have moved offshore in order to evade taxes to contract 
with the Homeland Security Department.
  These kinds of provisions underscore just how ridiculous this 
homeland security debate has become. Anyone who opposes this 
legislation will be labeled unpatriotic. You can count on that. The 
sting of that political attack is enough to allow gobs of complete and 
utter junk to be shoved in this bill and shoved through the Congress 
with lightning speed. The fear of being subjected to utterly vile 
campaign political attacks is allowing a slew of dangerous provisions--
provisions that would never ever get through on their own--to be pushed 
along with hardly a glance. Just hold your nose, pinch it, and vote for 
cloture and vote for this bill. Go home feeling good. Oh, we passed 
some feel-good legislation. Whoopee, great, hot diggedy dog. We passed 
a piece of feel-good legislation.
  The American people should be afraid. The American people should be 
very afraid not only of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein but of the 
monumental cynicism driven by this White House, and regrettably 
unopposed by this body.
  Mr. President, I apologize to the Senate, to the staff, to the pages, 
all who work in this body--they work hard; they work long hours--for 
detaining you from going home early and getting an early supper. We 
call it supper down in West Virginia. Call it dinner, if you wish. We 
have kept you waiting, and I apologize for my part. Who else has done 
it? I am the one rascal here who has kept you waiting. I apologize for 
that.
  Had we not been faced with a cloture vote tomorrow, I could have 
waited until tomorrow and said these things. But when else am I 
supposed to say it? If cloture is invoked tomorrow, I will have no 
opportunity to say it. Then we only have 30 hours--all of us, 100 
Senators have 30 hours--and I suppose that is an hour each at most.
  There is a record standing. There is a record that stands with him 
who holds the waters in his hands; there is a record that stands. That 
record will be written, and it will be there for the next thousand 
years for all who want to read it.
  I believe the American people expect us to oppose this way of 
legislating. It is not as our children are being told the way to make 
laws.
  Mr. President, I end my remarks, as I began them earlier today, by 
reading from 1st Corinthians, chapter 14, verse 8 and verse 9:

       For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall 
     prepare himself to the battle?
       So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to 
     be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? For ye 
     shall speak into the air.

  Mr. President, that is the way I began my remarks. If we pass this 
bill, we are going to be the trumpet that gives forth an uncertain 
sound. The American people are going to be told, and they are going to 
believe, that they are made more safe, but we will have sent forth an 
uncertain sound. The people will not be made more safe by this piece of 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have two short statements that I would 
like to make concerning this legislation. The first deals with the use 
of appropriated funds.
  As my colleagues know, one of the major issues confronting Congress 
with respect to establishing the Department of Homeland Security was 
the extent to which the Homeland Secretary would be given the authority 
to transfer funds between appropriations accounts or among the 
organizations and programs within the new Department.

[[Page S11041]]

  Underlying this issue are two critical questions--how best to give 
the Homeland Secretary the flexibility he or she needs to organize and 
operate the new Department, and how best to preserve the Congress's 
constitutional authority to appropriate funds and to oversee their use.
  Previous versions of the Homeland Security Department legislation 
included extensive language governing how the Department would allocate 
and use appropriated funds and funds generated through property 
disposal or gifts from outside the Federal Government.
  The compromise embodied in the final version of the Homeland Security 
Department legislation now before us takes a somewhat different 
approach, but the net effect is the same: Congress's appropriations 
authorities are maintained. Transferred funds must be used for the 
purposes for which they were appropriated, and Congress must approve, 
in advance, the reallocation of transferred funds away from their 
originally intended purposes.
  Language added to the final bill reinforces the requirement that 
personnel, assets, and obligations transferred to the new Department 
shall be allocated in accordance with section 1531(a)(2) of title 31, 
United States Code. That section of permanent law requires that funds 
transferred within or between Executive branch agencies to finance 
transferred functions or activities must be used for a purpose for 
which the appropriation was originally available.
  During the final negotiations on this bill, any language dealing 
directly with use of the general authority to transfer funds was 
dropped, since it is an authorization act. That authority will be 
included in the continuing resolution that I hope we will pass to keep 
the Federal Government functioning after we adjourn or recess this 
year. Since virtually every annual appropriations act includes general 
transfer authority language, the negotiators agreed that it was more 
consistent and effective to include the new Department's transfer 
authority in an appropriations act. The continuing resolution is our 
first appropriations opportunity to accomplish this objective. I intend 
to see to it that it will be in the resolution if at all possible, and 
I believe it is already agreed to.
  The negotiators did retain in the authorization bill the language 
regarding property disposal and gifts. The language also requires that 
the new Department submit a detailed budget request annually beginning 
with fiscal year 2004. That will be the request we receive next year.
  The continuing resolution language provides general transfer 
authority of $500 million for fiscal year 2003 and the same amount in 
fiscal year 2004. It stipulates that this authority may not be used 
unless for higher priority items, based on unforeseen homeland security 
requirements, than those for which originally appropriated and in no 
case where the item for which funds are requested has been denied by 
the Congress. The language provides an additional $140 million in 
transfer authority for fiscal year 2003 for the salaries and expenses 
associated with the initiation of the Department.

  The appropriations language further requires that the Senate and 
House Committees on Appropriations receive 15 days' advance notice 
before any funding transfer is made, and it establishes that the new 
Department will submit formal reprogramming requests to these 
committees for any proposed funding transfer. The language further 
stipulates that, of the total amount of transfer authority provided, 
and except as otherwise specifically authorized by law, not to exceed 
two percent of any appropriations available to the Home Secretary may 
be transferred between appropriations. I am satisfied those meet our 
general requirements, although they are not in the original request I 
made in the Governmental Affairs Committee on which I serve.
  In many respects, these provisions mirror language that is included 
annually in every Department of Defense Appropriations Act. In 
addition, use of transfer authority would be subject to approval or 
disapproval in writing by the Committees on Appropriations, which would 
review reprogramming requests submitted and considered under 
established procedures based on the reprogramming procedures used by 
the Defense Department and Congress for defense transfer authority 
actions. We intend to mirror the procedure that has been used so 
successfully with regard to defense matters when we are reviewing 
national security matters.
  Finally, the authorization bill includes a provision intended to help 
Congress to assess the long-term funding requirements for the new 
Department. That provision requires annual submission of a Future Years 
Homeland Security Program that projects spending requirements for at 
least five fiscal years. This detailed, multi-year document is due 
beginning with the fiscal year 2005 budget request.
  The final authorization language, and the language in the continuing 
resolution, preserve the statutory and administrative requirements 
needed to ensure that any funds made available to the new Department 
are used effectively and efficiently and according to the will of the 
people as reflected through their elected Senators and Representatives.
  This language, and the annual appropriations process, ensure that the 
Homeland Security has the appropriate authorities to organize and 
operate the new Department, and that Congress will remain directly 
engaged in deciding how appropriated funds are used, or reallocated, by 
the Executive branch.
  In so doing, I believe, and it has been my intent working with the 
distinguished chairman, that this language preserves Congress's 
Constitutional and rightful role in our government--a role that the 
Founding Fathers intended and that our constituents demand. Our 
constitutional oath requires Members to assure that our constituents' 
demand for our oversight will be fulfilled.
  I have a second short statement. I have been very interested in 
preserving the Coast Guard's non-homeland security mission performance 
under this bill. I will discuss for the Senate today a vitally 
important section of the homeland security legislation that we consider 
here.
  This section--Section 888--is entitled ``Preserving Coast Guard 
Mission Importance,'' and its implementation is essential to 
maintaining without significant reduction the Coast Guard's non-
homeland security capabilities and missions.
  We all recognize the critical homeland security missions the Coast 
Guard performs. However, it is just as critical to the United States 
that the Coast guard effectively and successfully accomplish its non-
homeland security missions. The criticality of these non-homeland 
security missions extends far beyond the 30 coastal and Great Lake 
states. These non-homeland security missions affect the maritime 
safety, law enforcement, environmental conditions, and economic 
security of our entire nation.
  The Coast Guard's non-homeland security missions are marine safety, 
search and rescue, aids to navigation, living marine resources--
including fisheries law enforcement, marine environmental protection, 
and ice operations.
  All these missions are critical to the well-being of Alaskans, and we 
rely on the Coast Guard virtually every day for protection and 
assistance in these mission areas. I am confident that my colleagues 
who also will speak on this section of the bill will attest further to 
the importance to their states and to the rest of the nation of 
preserving the Coast Guard's vital non-homeland security capabilities 
and missions.
  Preserving these missions and capabilities is the fundamental intent 
and purpose of Section 888.
  The Coast Guard cannot accomplish its non-homeland security missions 
effectively and successfully unless its current capabilities in these 
areas are preserved intact and without significant reduction. Section 
888 mandates the preservation of these capabilities, and of the Coast 
Guard's authorities and functions in these areas, unless Congress 
specifies otherwise in subsequent acts.
  I would add at this point that, since September 11, 2001, the Coast 
Guard has assumed greatly expanded homeland security responsibilities 
without seeing a reduction in its non-homeland security requirements. 
This is a strong justification for allocating even more total resources 
to the Coast Guard on an annual and long-term basis.

[[Page S11042]]

  Section 888 further reinforces and protects the Coast Guard's non-
homeland security missions and capabilities by preventing the diversion 
of any mission, function, or asset--including ships, aircraft, and 
helicopters--to the principal and continuing use of any other 
organization, unit, or entity of the Homeland Security Department. This 
restriction is intended to minimize, if not eliminate, any prospect of 
the diversion from the Coast Guard of the personnel, equipment or other 
resources needed to perform its non-homeland security missions. 
Personnel details or assignments that do not reduce the Coast Guard's 
capability to perform these missions are permitted.
  Section 888 further prohibits the Homeland Secretary from reducing 
the Coast Guard's non-homeland security missions and capabilities 
substantially or significantly unless Congress specifies otherwise in 
subsequent Acts.
  The Homeland Security Secretary may waive this restriction for no 
more than 90 days, but he or she must first declare and certify to 
Congress that a clear, compelling, and immediate need exists for such a 
waiver.
  If he or she exercises the waiver authority, the Homeland Secretary 
must submit to Congress a detailed justification. Thus, the elected 
Senators and Representatives of the American people will have an 
opportunity to determine whether they agree or disagree with the 
waiver. We will have the opportunity to assess the impact of such a 
waiver on the Coast Guard's non-homeland security missions and to make 
our views known should there be any cause for concerns.
  The language in Section 888 does provide more flexibility than the 
Coast Guard-related language in the earlier versions of the Homeland 
Security Department bills that we have been debating since July. 
However, this latest language still will protect the Coast Guard from 
any major changes to its non-homeland security missions and 
capabilities because it clearly does not provide the authority to make 
wholesale and sweeping changes in these areas.
  This final language also includes other important provisions that 
will contribute to the Coast Guard's overall well-being and 
effectiveness as part of the new Homeland Security Department, as well 
as help preserve its non-homeland security missions and capabilities. 
These provisions have been carried over from at least one of the 
previous versions of the legislation, or they have been crafted to 
further enhance the Coast Guard's position in the new Department.
  These provisions include language transferring the Coast Guard to the 
new Department as a freestanding and distinct entity that is not under 
the jurisdiction of any of the Department's new directorates, and 
language ensuring that the Service's Commandant shall report directly 
to the Homeland Secretary without being required to report through any 
other departmental official.
  Take separately and together, these subsections strengthen the 
institutional position of the Coast Guard and the Commandant within the 
Department, thus enhancing the Service's ability to compete for 
resources and to influence policy in both the non-homeland security and 
homeland security areas. They are an unambiguous statement by the 
Congress about the importance of the Coast Guard and all its missions 
within the Department.
  Another subsection requires the new Department's Inspector General to 
report annually to Congress on the mission performance of the Coast 
Guard, with a particular emphasis on the non-homeland security 
missions. This information should help Congress identify whether 
additional actions are needed to preserve these non-homeland security 
missions and capabilities.
  The Homeland Secretary also is required by another subsection to 
report to Congress not later than 90 days after enactment of the Act on 
whether the procurement rate in the Service's top-priority 
modernization program--the integrated deepwater system--can be 
accelerated by 10 years. Timely implementation of the Deepwater program 
is essential to maintaining and improving the Coast Guard's 
capabilities to accomplish all its missions. Congress should consider 
whether accelerating the program is an affordable and cost-effective 
way to accomplish these objectives, especially in the non-homeland 
security area.
  A final subsection ensures that the conditions and restrictions in 
Section 888 shall not apply when the Coast Guard operates as a service 
in the Navy under section 3 of title 14, United States code. It would 
be inappropriate to apply these conditions and restrictions under such 
circumstances. Under section 3 of title 14, the Coast Guard becomes 
part of the Navy in Wartime or as directed by the President.
  In summary, Section 888 resulted from productive negotiations with 
the White House and our House colleagues during which all sides strived 
to make reasonable compromises that would enable Congress to pass a 
final version of the Homeland Security Department legislation during 
this post-election session. Refinements suggested by the Coast Guard 
also are included in the language.
  The language maintains the structural and operational integrity of 
the Coast Guard, the authority of the Commandant, the non-homeland 
security missions of the Coast Guard, and the Service's capabilities to 
carry out these missions even as it is transferred to the new 
Department. The language is clearly intended to assure that the 
important homeland security priorities of the new Department will not 
eclipse the Coast Guard's crucial non-homeland security missions and 
capabilities.
  Section 888 strikes the right balance at this time between 
maintaining the Coast Guard's vital non-homeland security missions and 
capabilities and permitting it to carry out important homeland security 
responsibilities.
  Just as importantly, this language and the annual appropriations 
process, ensure that Congress will remain directly engaged in deciding 
the extent to which any significant changes occur in the future to the 
Coast Guard's non-homeland security missions and capabilities. 
Congress's continued and direct engagement in such matters is essential 
given the importance to the American people of these missions and 
capabilities.
  And again, these missions and capabilities are vital to my State of 
Alaska.
  I thank my distinguished friend for allowing me to make these two 
statements. I am late to a meeting. I wanted to make sure we explained 
to the Senate what we have done in modifying this bill.
  I know it does not meet totally the requirements and approval of my 
friend from West Virginia. But I do think, under the circumstances, 
that we will have this continued role of supervision and we will retain 
the same type of control over reprogrammings of the new Homeland 
Security Department that we have over the Department of Defense. We 
should be able to continue in the future the same kind of Congressional 
connection to the changes in the use of funds--and there will be 
changes, based on changing priorities, changing circumstances--and we 
are part of that process. It will not be done without the prior 
approval of Congress.
  I think I can assure my friend, in my judgment, we have preserved to 
the maximum extent possible our constitutional role in this process as 
it goes forward. There is no question every appropriations bill 
annually will address this issue and we will address it as we have in 
connection with defense matters in the past.
  I thank my friend from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator is welcome. I 
appreciate what he has said. I hope the Senator's assurances--I know 
they are sincerely given--will prove to be direct and true. I must say 
I have great concerns about this legislation as it is written as to the 
verbiage that we find in this new package that is on our desks today. 
It made its appearance yesterday. I hope the distinguished Senator from 
Alaska is accurate and that he is correct, and that the assurances 
which he has been given and which he is giving will prove to be the 
case.
  I have a great deal of confidence in my friend from Alaska. I have 
implicit confidence in him. I have never had that confidence shaken. 
But that confidence I have in him does not extend beyond him, I have to 
say truthfully, to the people in this administration. But I do trust my 
friend and I know he will try to his level best to see to it that the 
administration deals fairly

[[Page S11043]]

and squarely with us in the appropriations process.
  With that, I again thank him.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield----
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. I give the Senator my assurance we will continue to work 
together to assure we maintain our constitutional role in the 
activities of this new Department. But I also feel it is absolutely 
necessary that this bill be passed this year because if it is not, 
regardless of the size of the bill, it will literally die at the end of 
December and we will have to start all over again. With the tensions 
facing the world and challenges our Government faces to maintain 
homeland security, it is absolutely essential we start forward. We have 
a slight disagreement on that. But I do believe this bill gives us a 
framework to work with this subject.
  I think the ongoing responsibility to assure the new Department will 
continue to be effective will primarily rest with the appropriations 
process. This will be an enormous demand, a new demand on our Treasury, 
to fund a wholly new type of homeland security.
  We are consolidating a whole series of agencies, hopefully bringing 
about some new efficiencies. But it will require increased money.
  Senator Byrd and I have, will continue to have, the role of seeing to 
it the Senate's operations with regard to the appropriations process 
are fully understood by the new homeland security department and its 
personnel, and that we will work effectively to see to it we fulfill 
our constitutional responsibility with regard to control of the 
people's money.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I have 
never seen anything in the demeanor of the distinguished Senator from 
Alaska, anything in his words, anything in his daily activities, the 
record he has made here, that would create any doubt, as far as I am 
concerned, in him and his intention to carry this out. I have to say I 
don't have the same kind of confidence in the people at the other end 
of the avenue. I think we are making a huge mistake in passing this 
bill at this time.
  I think the appropriations the distinguished Senator from Alaska and 
I have worked together in making possible, along with the other members 
of our committee--I think those appropriations, which have not been 
signed into law by the President, some of which have not passed the 
other body, and most of which have been held in check by the other body 
at the behest of the administration--those would have given to the 
American people far more security than would this bill. But as to the 
Senator, my trust in him--as I said it before and I will say it again--
is implicit. I have no doubt he intends to do the best he can to see 
this appropriations process goes along as the Framers and as our 
predecessors have intended.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the critical distinctions 
between the legislation as reported out by the Governmental Affairs 
Committee and the House passed bill, creating a Department of Homeland 
Security.
  I think it is wise to proceed cautiously when creating a mega-
Department of Homeland Security which would encompass approximately 22 
agencies and involve about 170,000 employees. We all recognize that we 
face new threats, and we all recognize the need to better coordinate 
efforts to protect Americans from these threats. However, it is also 
critically important, as the distinguished senior Senator from West 
Virginia has repeatedly noted, to consider carefully what is being 
proposed to ensure that any legislation enhances our security and does 
not detract from it.
  William Safire describes in Thursday's New York Times how the House 
proposed Homeland Security Act will create a computerized dossier on 
the private life of every American citizen. I urge my colleagues to 
read Mr. Safire's prescient column entitled, ``You Are a Suspect''. His 
arguments are one reason why we should proceed cautiously to creating a 
Department of Homeland Security.
  The President compares the reorganization of agencies within the 
federal government into a new Department of Homeland Security to the 
creation of the Department of Defense after World War II. But the two 
departments that were combined to create the Department of Defense, the 
Department of the Army and the Department of the Navy, had the same 
primary mission, to defend the United States. They had similar cultures 
and management priorities. This is not true of the proposed new 
Department of Homeland Security. Many of the agencies, such as the 
Coast Guard, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, have varying missions, priorities 
and cultures.
  Any far-reaching change to the structure of the federal government 
demands thorough and open discussion. Senator Lieberman has done a 
great service to his country by holding hearings and debating 
extensively the structure of such a department. But there needs to be 
further debate and amendment to the proposal offered by the 
Republicans.
  Let me make a dozen points as to why the legislation reported out by 
our Governmental Affairs Committee, which was subjected to numerous 
public hearings, represents an improvement over legislation passed by 
the House last night and why the House proposal, supported by the 
President, is seriously flawed.
  First, the House proposal raises serious concerns about the 
collection, use, and dissemination of private information, the issue 
addressed by Mr. Safire. It gives the Secretary broad access to 
information relating to investigations and places restrictions on the 
authority of the inspector general to conduct inquiries into the new 
department's operations. Our committee substitute corrected this 
oversight by creating both a strong Civil Rights Officer and a strong 
Chief Privacy Officer.
  The privacy officer would assist the Department with the development 
and implementation of policies and procedures to ensure that privacy 
considerations and safeguards are incorporated and implemented in 
programs and activities, and that information is handled in a manner 
that minimizes the risks of harm to individuals from inappropriate 
disclosure. Such officers are necessary to protect Americans from 
encroachments on their civil liberties.
  The committee-reported legislation created a powerful civil rights 
officer, ensuring compliance with all civil rights laws, coordinating 
with the administration, assisting in the development and 
implementation of civil rights policies, and reporting to the Inspector 
General on matters warranting further investigation. In contrast, the 
new bill just passed by the House would only require the Civil Rights 
Officer to review and assess alleged abuses and report to Congress. In 
the House bill the Secretary appoints the officer and in the 
Governmental Affairs committee-reported bill the President appoints and 
the Senate confirms the officer, ensuring greater accountability. The 
Committee alternative worked to ensure that civil rights were not 
violated in the first instance.
  The threat of a ``Big Brother'' new department cannot be 
overemphasized. With the President proposing programs like the 
Terrorism Information and Prevention System, Operation TIPS, a national 
program to encourage volunteers to report suspect activities to the 
Department of Justice, and the Department of Defense's new ``Total 
Information Awareness,'' we need strong protections against violations 
of Americans' privacy and civil rights. The first defense of our 
freedom comes from a system with checks and balances. The House 
proposal, supported by the President, does not contain sufficient 
checks and balances.
  Second, under the first House-passed bill and the President's 
original proposal, whistleblowers were not protected. Merit Systems 
Protection Board, MSPB, appeal rights as well as Office of Special 
Counsel, OSC, enforcement were not included. I am pleased to say that 
under the proposal before us today, whistleblowers retain most of their 
rights. However, the bill does not go far enough. Due to the waiver of 
collective bargaining rights, third-party arbitration may not be 
protected for those federal employees who are union members and blow 
the whistle. Third party arbitration is an effective way to resolve 
whistle blower cases due to the hostile decisions of the Federal 
Circuit.
  Third, the administration proposal transfers the Transportation 
Security

[[Page S11044]]

Agency, TSA, into the new department. Baggage screeners are our first 
line of defense against terrorism on our airlines, and they need to 
have the same protections as our border patrol agents, INS employees, 
and custom inspectors so that they can come forward to disclose risks 
to our public health and safety. The committee's bill, as a result of 
an amendment offered by Senator Levin and myself, gave full 
whistleblower rights to baggage screeners and their supervisors and to 
contract screeners. This is something that the House proposal fails to 
do.

  Fourth, the new administration-supported bill gives minimal 
assurances that non-homeland security functions in the 22 agencies to 
be absorbed in the new Department will be preserved and not eliminated 
or diminished. The committee's amendment, which I offered with Senator 
Carper, required that all non-homeland security functions of each 
agency be identified, along with the resources needed to preserve these 
functions, and the additional changes needed to ensure that non-
homeland security functions would not be diminished. The new proposal 
drops this critical reporting requirement. In fact, the new bill 
removes all reports to Congress which would allow Congress to monitor 
closely the creation of the new department and to ensure vital non-
homeland security functions are preserved.
  Fifth, the committee-reported bill provided critical management 
guidance to the development of an effective homeland security mission. 
Agencies need specific guidance on how to achieve success. There are 
over 40 federal agencies with homeland security missions--some to be 
within the new department but others to remain outside. For many, 
homeland security is a new responsibility that must be added to 
existing missions. Agencies will need to rationalize their new homeland 
security missions with their existing responsibilities. The committee's 
amendment provided for a process for ensuring that this occurs. The 
House proposal does not.
  Sixth, the House-passed bill creates a new Under Secretary for 
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection with two subordinate 
directorates, including one for intelligence which is given 
extraordinary access to sensitive information, both domestic and 
foreign. Under the House formulation as supported by the President, the 
new Secretary can trump the authority of the Director of Central 
Intelligence. The new directorate will duplicate work already being 
performed by the CIA's Counter Terrorism Center. Furthermore, Section 
202 of the President's bill requires all agencies to provide all 
information to the new Department, including information which might 
pertain to intelligence sources and methods, without the Secretary even 
having to request that information. This gives this new office 
unprecedented access with few checks and balances, suggesting that the 
new office may have the capability to intrude to an extraordinary 
extent into the private lives of individual American citizens. These 
are very worrisome developments. The new formulation risks endangering 
our individual, as well as our national, security. Senator Thompson, 
Senator Lieberman, Senator Levin and I had worked out an amendment 
which was contained in the committee bill. This amendment should have 
been accepted by the President. I am deeply troubled concerning the 
administration's new mission for the Department's intelligence 
directorate.
  Seventh, the latest proposal does not address the serious 
shortcomings across the Federal Government in communicating security 
threats to the public. The American people are confused and frustrated 
by threat advisories without direction and repeated statements by the 
administration that future terrorist attacks are inevitable. The 
committee bill ensured that the Secretary of the new Department worked 
with state and local officials to develop more effective alert systems, 
more useful warnings, and improved communication with the public and 
private sector. In short, the Governmental Affairs Committee's 
legislation would have empowered the American people to play a role in 
the war on terrorism.
  Eighth, this new proposal transfers the Plum Island Animal Disease 
Center from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Homeland 
Security. However, many potential agriculture terrorism diseases, such 
as anthrax, are not studied at Plum Island. Rather than pulling off one 
piece of the Department of Agriculture's much needed and 
underappreciated laboratory network, the Governmental Affairs Committee 
alternative left Plum Island where it was and instead ensured 
coordination and consultation between the Department of Homeland 
Security and Agriculture on bioterrorism research priorities.
  Ninth, the House proposal does not address serious shortfalls in 
emergency preparedness and response capabilities for agricultural 
terrorism. The Lieberman alternative acknowledged the importance of 
agriculture to our national economy and the dangers that an infectious 
animal or plant disease could pose to human health, rural America, and 
our Nation's economy. A large scale agricultural disease outbreak, 
whether of natural or deliberate origin, will require rapid and 
coordinated efforts by the Department of Agriculture, the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
Departments of Health and Human Services, Transportation, Defense, and 
Justice, and local and State emergency managers. The committee's 
amendment ensured that agricultural health diseases were considered in 
security assessments and that the animal health and agriculture 
communities would be included in planning, training, and response 
activities.
  Tenth, in the name of flexibility, the President's initial proposal 
waived all of the provisions of title 5 leaving federal employees 
without protection from discrimination or whistleblower retaliations. 
The House proposal maintains most of title 5; however, it allows for 
the waiver of provisions affecting collective bargaining rights and 
appeal rights. One of the key factors to the so-called success of the 
Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, and the Internal Revenue Service, 
IRS, two agencies that have managerial flexibilities, is the strong 
role federal labor unions play in the shaping of the personnel system 
and in resolving employee disputes through third-party arbitration. 
This third-party arbitration is even more critical since cases 
involving coercion to participate in political activity, violations of 
veterans preference rights, giving unlawful preference or advantage to 
any employee, or other prohibited personnel practices can no longer be 
appealed to an independent body such as the Merit Systems Protection 
Board, MSPB. The personnel system at the FAA removed MSPB appeal rights 
in 1996 only to have them reinstated by Congress in 2000 at the urging 
of Federal employees and managers.

  While the merit system principles are designed to ensure that Federal 
employment is efficient, fair, open to all, and free from political 
interference, the civil service rules of title 5, reinforced by 
collective bargaining rights, provide the framework for implementing 
and enforcing merit principles. Without such laws in place, the 
principles we all strive for cannot be reached. The Governmental 
Affairs Committee's reported bill preserved all of title 5, protected 
collective bargaining rights, and provided additional flexibilities 
governmentwide.
  Some 25 years ago, the Civil Service Reform Act, CSRA, of 1978 
responded to the same issues confronting our Government today. The act 
established the principles of openness and procedural justice that 
define the civil service today. It created the Merit Systems Protection 
Board and the Office of Special Counsel to protect the rights of 
Federal employees. The Federal Labor Relations Authority was created to 
oversee labor-management practices. The act provided a statutory basis 
for the collective bargaining rights of Federal workers. It prohibited 
reprisals against employees who expose government fraud, waste and 
abuse. Those in the Federal workforce demonstrate their loyalty and 
dedication not just to their employer but to their country every day. 
On September 11, the Federal workforce responded with courage, 
dedication, and sacrifice. Why is the President repaying their 
sacrifice by undermining their rights and our civil service by 
proposing these changes?
  Eleventh, the House legislation fails to protect veterans by allowing 
the

[[Page S11045]]

waiver of chapter 77 of title 5 relating to appeals. This would make 
veterans go to an agency management-operated process to challenge anti-
veteran personnel actions by the same agency management. Under current 
law, veterans who believe that they have been denied a position or have 
been subject to a ``designer'' Reduction-In-Force, RIF, action in 
violation of veterans' preference requirements can challenge such 
wrongful actions through the Merit Systems Protection Board or through 
a union grievance procedure. This will no longer be possible under the 
House bill. The Committee's bill would have preserved MSPB review of 
veterans' preference complaints. Ironically, as we are in the midst of 
a war on terrorism and have authorized a war against Iraq, the 
Administration is weakening veterans' preference rights. This is 
fundamentally wrong.
  Twelfth, the House proposal and the Governmental Affairs Committee-
reported bill include provisions protecting the confidential sharing of 
critical infrastructure information. With cyber attacks on the rise, 
government and industry leaders have been seeking a way to facilitate 
the sharing of information related to cyber vulnerabilities and 
attacks. Sharing such information is important because 85 percent of 
the Nation's infrastructure is controlled by private utility, 
telecommunications, or other similar companies. Despite the need to 
facilitate information sharing, I question the extent to which such 
information will be protected and the impact of such protections on 
environmental and public health laws.
  In general, the owners and operators of critical infrastructure are 
concerned about the type and scope of information they are being asked 
to submit to the government. This data deals with vulnerabilities, 
incidents, and remedies which, if made available to business 
competitors or to the general public, could compromise their 
competitive position, expose them to liability, disclose sensitive 
information to terrorists and others who might wish to disrupt the 
function of their infrastructure, or harm their public relations.
  However, current law provides adequate protection to the private 
sector for disclosing this type of information to the Federal 
Government. Nonetheless, industry has expressed its concern over non-
binding case law that could be overturned. As such, the Governmental 
Affairs Committee bill provided a narrow exception to the Freedom of 
Information Act which closely follows current law. This provision was 
designed to facilitate the sharing of information with the Federal 
Government, while at the same time providing citizens with necessary 
information on public health and environmental issues. The Committee 
bill was careful not to provide an inadvertent safe harbor for those 
who violate Federal health and safety statutes.
  For these reasons, I believe that the Governmental Affairs 
Committee's legislation offered a more effective approach to guarding 
homeland security than the proposal advocated by the President who 
recently stated that ``our job--our government's greatest 
responsibility is to protect the American people. ``I agree with the 
President, but I do not agree that by voting for the President's flawed 
proposal we will be adequately protecting the American people.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Corzine 
for his efforts to address the serious issue of chemical site security. 
The Chemical Security Act, S. 1602, which I cosponsored, would require 
``high priority'' facilities to improve security and reduce hazards. 
The bipartisan and strong support for this issue was demonstrated last 
July when the bill unanimously passed the Senate Environment and Public 
Works Committee.
  Across the country, thousands of industrial facilities use dangerous 
chemicals in amounts that could endanger nearby communities if the 
facilities were attacked by terrorists. According to the Environmental 
Protection Agency's Risk Management Planning program, there are 123 
facilities where a release of chemicals could threaten more than 1 
million people. There are also more than 700 facilities from which a 
chemical release could threaten more than 100,000 residential 
neighbors. Yet there is no Federal security standard for chemical 
facilities, no Federal guidelines on facility proximity to neighboring 
communities, and no Federal agency overseeing the operations and safety 
of these facilities.
  This bill is not intended to address chemical accidents. The Clean 
Air Act already provides existing authority. However, a review of the 
chemical accident data provides clear insight into the dangers 
associated with chemical releases from these facilities. Federal data 
suggests that in 1998 there were almost 50,000 incidents--fires, spills 
and explosions--over 100 deaths, and nearly 5,000 injuries, related to 
chemical industrial accidents in the United States. Some analysts 
suggest that for each catastrophic chemical accident that causes a 
fatality, there are 300 recordable incidents and 30,000 near misses. 
One estimate suggests that U.S. chemical accidents cost about $15 
billion a year.
  In 1999, Congress required the Department of Justice to issue, within 
3 years, a report to Congress on the vulnerability of chemical 
facilities to criminal and terrorist activity. For over a year, the 
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has been asking for this 
report. Beyond a very thin and useless preliminary draft, the 
administration has not complied with this requirement of the Clean Air 
Act amendments. The Justice Department claims that funding constraints 
have impacted their work. This excuse is completely unacceptable, as is 
the administration's delay in addressing what may be this Nation's 
biggest terrorist vulnerability. Three years ago, Congress recognized 
the potential risks to our Nation's chemical security. Not 1 more year 
or month should pass with this issue unresolved.
  Press reports highlight the public's frustration. In September, 
Newsweek reported a failing grade to the Federal Government in 
protecting chemical plants and other hazardous materials. I believe the 
article accurately described the forces blocking action: ``industry 
lobbyists and infighting among a multitude of government agencies 
trying to defend their turf have combined to hold (Governor) Ridge's 
office and the Environmental Protection Agency at bay.''
  I ask my colleague to step beyond bureaucratic delays and special 
interest pressures to think of the families that could be impacted by 
our inaction here today. We must act on this issue as soon as possible.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I extend my appreciation to the Senator from 
Iowa who has other things to do, but he has agreed to be here for a few 
minutes.

                          ____________________