[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16831-16835]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


                HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will be brief. The President again 
today admonished the Senate for moving slowly on homeland security. He 
again told his audience that he was very concerned that we are moving 
slowly on an issue of great import in terms of his design on homeland 
security and the need for a recognition of national security through 
this legislation.
  Let me simply say to the President and to anybody else who has 
question: There is no desire to slow down this legislation. There are 
Senators who have very significant concerns about various provisions, 
but there ought to be no question about our desire to continue to work 
to complete the deliberation of this legislation and send it to 
conference as quickly as possible.
  We have only had an opportunity to debate one amendment and bring it 
to closure. It would be my hope we could take up Senator Byrd's 
amendment sometime very soon and we could take up other amendments to 
the legislation as soon as possible. We have now been on this bill for 
3 weeks, and I understand why some would be concerned about the pace 
with which the Senate is dealing with this legislation.
  I discussed the matter with Senator Lott, and I think he shares my 
view that we have to move the bill along. I note that if the President 
had supported homeland security legislation when the Democrats first 
offered it last summer, we probably would have completed it by now. It 
took them about 2 months to respond to the actions taken by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee in the Senate. But that has been done. 
They have responded, and we have worked with them to come up with a 
plan of which we are very proud and a product that can be addressed.
  Senator Byrd has a good amendment. There are others who have 
amendments as well, but the time has come to move on. I had originally 
hoped we could get an agreement that only relevant amendments would be 
offered. We have not had a case of nonrelevant amendments. We have had 
a case of no amendments in this process. It is very important for us to 
demonstrate to the American people, it is very important for us to make 
as clear as we can that we want to come to closure on this 
legislation--take up amendments and deal with them effectively, but the 
amendments ought to be germane and we ought to work within a timeframe.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, with respect to the Lieberman 
substitute amendment to the homeland security bill, I send a cloture 
motion to the desk.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask the leader if he will add my name to 
that cloture motion.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to add the Senator's name.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I give the distinguished majority leader 
my power of attorney to sign this for me. Everybody in the country 
knows about my trembling hands. So I hope the majority will sign this 
for me.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 
that right, and we will accommodate the Senator's request. I appreciate 
very much his support of the cloture motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair 
directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Lieberman 
     substitute amendment No. 4471 for H.R. 5005, Homeland 
     Security legislation.
             Jean Carnahan, Herb Kohl, Jack Reed (RI), Richard J. 
           Durbin, Kent Conrad, Paul Wellstone, Jim Jeffords, Max 
           Baucus, Tom Harkin, Harry Reid (NV), Patrick Leahy, 
           Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Byron L. Dorgan, Mark 
           Dayton, Debbie Stabenow, Robert Torricelli, Mary 
           Landrieu, Joseph Lieberman, Robert C. Byrd.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we now have two cloture motions before 
the Senate. The first one ripens this afternoon at 5:15. That is on the 
amendment offered by Senator Byrd to the Interior appropriations bill.
  We cannot get to the rest of the business before us unless that 
cloture motion is agreed to. There can be no excuse, there can be no 
reason, after all this debate, after all the meetings, that we cannot 
at least bring closure to that amendment.
  Senators still have a right to offer amendments to the bill, but we 
have to move on. I cannot imagine that there would be a Senator who 
would want to extend debate beyond the 3 weeks we have now debated 
Interior and the Byrd amendment. The same could be said of homeland 
security. If we want to respond to the President, who again today said 
the time for the Senate to act is now, let's respond on a bipartisan 
basis and let's vote for cloture on the Lieberman substitute and let's 
move this legislation along.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment 
briefly about the upcoming cloture vote and also about the status of 
our progress on the homeland security bill and the progress of the 
Senate on its fundamental responsibility to have a budget or make 
appropriations.
  I would have thought that on September 17, the day the Constitution 
was ratified, there would be more regard for the constitutional 
responsibility of the Senate. We have the power of appropriation, but 
we are not handling our duties. Much as I dislike saying so, I believe 
the Senate is dysfunctional. Harsh, perhaps, but true, certainly. We 
are simply not getting the job done.
  I am a little surprised to see a cloture motion filed on an amendment 
to an appropriations bill. If there were protracted debate, if there 
were an effort to stall, if there were some attempt made to delay the 
proceedings of the Senate, perhaps so. But there are Senators who want 
to vote on an important issue relating to the forests, especially in 
the West, and the dangers of fire. They have been seeking a vote but 
have not been able to get one.
  I intend to vote against cloture, to give Senators a chance to 
present their amendment. That is not to say I will support the 
amendment, but I believe the Senators ought to have an opportunity to 
present their amendment.
  Cloture has now been filed on the homeland security bill. We are now 
in our third week after returning from the August recess, and the 
Senate has done virtually nothing during that period of time. We have 
had prolonged speeches on generalizations which have, in fact, impeded 
the progress of the homeland security bill. We were in a position to 
vote on the amendment by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut 
last Thursday, but it could not get a vote because the time was 
consumed with speechmaking. Now, I like speechmaking as much as the 
next Senator, but there has to be some balance as to what is being 
done. And again this afternoon--I had not known unanimous consent was 
granted--more lengthy speeches, without really getting to the substance 
of what the Senate ought to be doing.
  We have not passed any appropriations bill among the 13 we are 
charged with passing. Now, this is September 17, 13 days away from the 
end of the fiscal year, with only a few working days left. The 
Department of Defense appropriations bill lies dormant. It has been

[[Page 16832]]

passed by both bodies, but there hasn't been a conference. The military 
construction appropriations bill lies dormant. Again, it has been 
passed by both bodies but there hasn't been a conference.
  We are fighting a war at the present time. We are cleaning up the 
remnants of other wars, in Kosovo and in Bosnia, and our troops are in 
Afghanistan. We will be called upon soon to vote on a resolution which 
may send us to war against Iraq.
  Now, what are we doing for the Department of Defense? We have a very 
substantial increase in defense funding, but the way it looks now, we 
are going to be having a continuing resolution. What the House has said 
ought to be adopted and what the Senate has said ought to be adopted 
will be curtailed very drastically if we have a continuing resolution. 
So we are simply not doing our job.
  Then we have 11 other appropriations bills. I have the 
responsibility, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education, to prepare a very major bill which 
funds the Department of Education, the major capital investment of 
America, the Department of Health and Human Services, which is very 
important, and the Department of Labor on worker safety. But we are not 
moving to pass the bill.
  The National Institutes of Health, probably the best investment this 
Congress makes, the crown jewel of the Federal Government--perhaps the 
only jewel of the Federal Government--has an increase of $3.5 billion 
in this year's appropriations bill. But as of this reading, it is 
unlikely to comment on its operation because we are not going to pass 
the bill.
  We are told that the Department of Defense appropriations bill is 
being held up because we have not established the allocations. Why 
haven't we established allocations? We haven't established allocations 
because there is no budget. The Budget Act was passed in 1974, and this 
is the first year there hasn't been a budget passed.
  As I am approaching the end of my 22nd year in this body, not an 
inconsiderable period of time, I have not seen the Senate in such 
disarray as we are at the present time.
  We had a vote several weeks ago on what was the equivalent of 
deeming. That is legal jargon, Senate jargon, for making out as if we 
had passed a budget to establish a figure. It required 60 votes to have 
this amendment passed--I was sorely tempted to vote for it--which would 
have established the Senate budget $9 billion above the House budget. I 
do believe we need a budget, because if we do not, we are going to be 
passing appropriations bills which far exceed the purported 
allocations.
  It is customary, on the attractive education proposals and the 
attractive health proposals, to get into the high fifties. With a 60-
vote requirement, those amendments are not passed, but they are very 
tempting amendments. When I responded to the rollcall, with 59 Senators 
having voted aye on the deeming resolution, I just was not going to do 
it, notwithstanding my deep commitment to the appropriations process 
and notwithstanding my knowledge that it was fairly important to have a 
budget figure.
  But if we are going to use a shortcut, if we are going to use a 
substitute, what is the point of having a budget resolution? If the 
Budget Committee knows it can be derelict in its duty and be bailed out 
by 60 Senators who will say, awe, shucks, let's go ahead and do it 
anyway, what is the point to have the Budget Committee do its job next 
year or any year?
  The previous chairman of the Budget Committee told me--the 
distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico is sitting in front of 
me--that he will be chairman next year. If I was sure of that, I would 
have voted for deeming. But I am not sure of much of anything on the 
current posture.
  So it is my hope that we will move ahead and have votes and let there 
be a vote on this issue on the course. But let us proceed to vote on 
the homeland security issues which are very important.
  One of the critical issues on homeland security, in my judgment, is 
to have the analysis of all the agencies--FBI, CIA, NSA--under one 
umbrella.
  Had that been done prior to September 11, 2001, I think that 
catastrophe might have been avoided. There were lots of danger signals. 
There were lots of dots on the board.
  There was the July FBI Phoenix memorandum about a man taking flight 
training and two al-Qaida men in Kuala Lumpur, known to the CIA, who 
later turned out to be pilots on the hijacked planes. The CIA didn't 
bother to tell the FBI or INS.
  You had the NSA warning on September 10 that something was going to 
happen the next day. But nobody bothered to translate it until 
September 12.
  Then you had the matter of Zacarias Moussaoui, a much celebrated 
personality today with the litigation in the Federal court. But had the 
FBI obtained a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 
there was a treasure trove of information linking Moussaoui to al-
Qaida. And there was a virtual blueprint, had all the dots been put 
together.
  After September 11, I opposed the creation of an independent 
commission because it seemed to me the Intelligence Committees could do 
the job. I understood that they couldn't move ahead immediately with 
hearings in closed session and then in open session in order to give 
the intelligence community an opportunity to regroup. But that time has 
long passed, and now we find the Intelligence Committees are embroiled 
in another investigation; that is, an investigation by the FBI against 
the Intelligence Committees.
  It is very difficult to understand how the Intelligence Committees 
can be investigating the FBI and the CIA and other intelligence 
agencies, and then, having a leak of classified material, to have the 
FBI investigate the intelligence committees. I wrote to the chairmen 
and vice chairmen of both the House and Senate, strongly urging them 
not to do that--that you simply can't have investigators being 
investigated by those who are under investigation.
  Then you have the issue of separation of powers. If the FBI is going 
to be able to investigate the Congress, what independence does the 
Congress have in our oversight function?
  So the Intelligence Committees have not moved ahead for that job. The 
only alternative now is an independent commission. I worked as one of 
the younger lawyers on the Warren Commission staff many years ago. I 
say ``younger lawyer'' because I am still a young lawyer. And, while 
the Warren Commission has received a fair amount of critical analysis 
over the years, the essential conclusions have held up--that Oswald was 
the sole assassin, or the single bullet that went through both the 
President and Governor Connolly and the President was struck by a later 
bullet which killed him. So I have now come to conclude that we need an 
independent commission.
  But most of all we need a Senate which will move ahead in its duties 
and obligations. This is a good day, September 17. September 17, 1787, 
was the day the Constitution was signed. So, 215 years later, that 
ought to be a hallmark for us to move ahead and discharge our duties.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I was en route here and was watching 
and saw the Senator from Pennsylvania speaking. I got here as fast as I 
could because I was wondering when somebody would say what he has said. 
Frankly, I am sorry the distinguished President pro tempore is not 
here, or I would ask him the same question: When do we intend? When 
would he let us vote on this very important, new Cabinet position and 
the Cabinet organization that goes with it?
  I heard much of what he wants to say. I know he wants to win. But I 
believe it is important that when we are at war, we proceed with some 
dispatch to give the President what he wants. If the distinguished 
Senator is going to lose, we all lose sometimes. If he is going to win, 
maybe he will win sooner than he thinks. But it is taking a long time 
and getting nowhere. And I think we know the issues on that new piece, 
that new Department of our Federal

[[Page 16833]]

Government. I think he ought to let us proceed with it.
  My further observation has to do with appropriations. You know, we 
are all tied in knots because we didn't get a budget resolution, and 
every time we say it, somebody should be here on our side of the aisle 
because it is not our fault. It is not me as ranking member. It is not 
my fault. And it is not my fault in any other capacity. I have been on 
that committee for 25 years, and never did I not get a budget 
resolution when I was chairman. One way or another, we got a budget 
resolution.
  Now we don't know which appropriations numbers to follow, the bigger 
number in the House or the Senate or vice versa. At least that much 
would be resolved with a budget resolution. I hope we learn from it and 
we get on to our business today.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam, President, my amendment, No. 4554, would 
establish an Office of National Capital Region Coordination within a 
newly-created Department of Homeland Security. Joining me in offering 
this amendment are Senators Warner, Mikulski, and Allen.
  The September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the Pentagon underscored 
the unique challenges the National Capital Region faces in emergency 
preparedness. A recent editorial in the Washington Post perhaps 
described the problem best:

       Sept. 11 laid bare the truth about the national capital 
     region's preparedness for a major terrorist attack. That 
     fateful day revealed that the area's 5 million residents, the 
     federal government's far-flung operations and the varied 
     state and local jurisdictions were ill-prepared for the kind 
     of emergencies that could result from bioterrorism or other 
     murderous terrorist strikes . . . . It will be no easy feat, 
     converting a region containing three branches of the federal 
     government, two states, and the District of Columbia, each 
     with separate police forces and emergency plans--but all 
     using the same roads and bridges--into a well-coordinated 
     governmental operating complex . . .

  In no other area of the country must vital decisionmaking and 
coordination occur between an independent city, two States, seventeen 
distinct local and regional authorities, including more than a dozen 
local police and Federal protective forces, and numerous Federal 
agencies.
  In hearings before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the 
District of Columbia, Senator Mary Landrieu, the Distinguished Chair of 
the Subcommittee, and virtually every witness highlighted the region's 
high risk for terrorism and the critical need for coordinated and 
timely communication between the Federal Government and the surrounding 
State and local jurisdictions. I want to commend Senator Landrieu for 
her leadership on this very important issue and for working to address 
the emergency preparedness funding needs of the District of Columbia 
and the Washington Metro system.
  Over the past year significant progress has been made on the State 
and local levels in emergency response protocols. The Metropolitan 
Washington Council of Governments, COG, the association representing 
the 17 major cities and counties in the region, should be commended for 
the strong partnerships and initiatives they have nurtured over the 
past twelve months, including the creation of the COG Ad Hoc Task Force 
on Homeland Security and the development of a Regional Emergency 
Response Plan.
  Similarly, at a summit meeting convened last month, the mayor of the 
District of Columbia and the Governors of Maryland and Virginia took a 
major step forward with the signing of an eight-point ``Commitments to 
Action'' to improve coordination. Unfortunately, the Office of Homeland 
Security, which helped convene the summit, is not a party to the 
agreement.
  What is still lacking, however, is the integration of the Federal 
Government's many and diverse protocols in the region with those of 
State and local authorities. This past August, a plan known as the 
Federal Emergency Decision and Notification Protocol was announced by 
the Administration, giving the directors of the Office of Personnel 
Management, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the General 
Services Administration the authority to release Federal employees in 
the area and around the country. However, as an August 17, 2002 article 
in the Washington Post notes, ``[left unclear by the plan is how 
Federal agencies execute the evacuation. Congress and the courts are 
independent of the President. Even Cabinet secretaries and senior 
agency directors have autonomy over their employees and buildings . . . 
.''
  I commend to my colleagues the September 10, 2002 edition of the 
Washington Post which featured a story detailing the status of 
emergency planning in the area, noting the work yet to be done by the 
Federal Government.
  The unique and dominant Federal presence in this region obligates the 
Federal Government to become a fully cooperative partner in the 
region's efforts at emergency planning and preparedness.
  One of the key goals of a new Department of Homeland Security is to 
consolidate the components of the Federal Government playing an 
integral role in the protection of the homeland, both existing and yet-
to-be-created, into one single entity whose purpose is to coordinate 
these components and facilitate their individual missions.
  In the National Capital Region, the many branches and agencies of the 
Federal Government similarly necessitate a single voice to aid and 
encourage the significant efforts already being undertaken by State, 
local, and regional authorities. It is with this goal in mind that my 
amendment proposes the creation of an office within a Department of 
Homeland Security that would provide such a voice.
  The Office of National Capital Region Coordination would establish a 
single Federal point of contact within a new Department of Homeland 
Security. This office would not only coordinate the activities of the 
Department affecting the Nation's Capital, but also act as a one-stop 
shop through which State, local, and regional authorities can look for 
meaningful access to the plans and preparedness activities of the 
numerous other Federal agencies and entities in the region. Likewise, 
this new office would become the vehicle used by the multitude of 
Federal entities in the area to receive vital information and input 
from the state, local, and regional level in the development of the 
Federal Government's planning efforts.
  In short, the Office of National Capital Region Coordination would 
ensure that the Federal Government takes a place at the table as this 
region makes unprecedented attempts to coordinate the work of its many 
State, local, and regional authorities.
  The need for such an office has been expressed and supported by many 
of the most important participants and stakeholders in the area's 
terrorism preparedness activities, including COG, WMATA, the Greater 
Washington Board of Trade, and the Potomac Electric Power Company, 
PEPCO. I ask that letters of support from these groups be printed in 
the Record immediately following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SARBANES. A year has passed since the horrific attacks of 
September 11th, and as we debate the shape and form of a new Department 
of Homeland Security, the time has come for the Federal Government to 
fulfill its obligations to the National Capital Region and those 
dedicated to preserving its safety. I would urge my colleagues to 
support this important amendment.

                                         Pepco Holdings, Inc.,

                               Washington, DC, September 10, 2002.
     Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Government Affairs, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Lieberman: As Chief Executive Officer of 
     Pepco Holdings Inc., I am writing to express my strong and 
     unequivocal support for Senator Paul Sarbanes' amendment to 
     the National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act of 
     2002.
       The proposed amendment would create within the Department 
     of Homeland Security a National Capital Region Coordination 
     Office. This office would have the responsibility of 
     coordinating the response activities of the Federal, State, 
     and local governments with that of the general public and the 
     private sector.
       The District of Columbia is truly in a unique situation 
     when it comes to Homeland

[[Page 16834]]

     Security. As our Nation's Capital, the District is home to 
     more than 370,000 Federal workers and draws over 18 million 
     visitors annually. At the same time, given the multi-
     jurisdictional nature of the Greater Washington Metropolitan 
     area and the enormous Federal presence, there are distinct 
     challenges facing this region's efforts to have a 
     comprehensive and coordinated response to terrorism.
       For example, there are over a dozen separate local police 
     departments in the greater Washington area. Overlaying this, 
     there are another dozen Federal law enforcement agencies, 
     each with their own jurisdiction and mandate. These 
     departments have their own procedures and are developing 
     their own contingency plans. Coordinating these efforts will 
     not be an easy task and will require a dedicated office 
     within the Department of Homeland Security.
       Unfortunately on September 11 we saw what can happen if the 
     region fails to coordinate its response. On the afternoon of 
     the attack the Federal government sent home its entire 
     workforce early without notifying anyone on the local level. 
     At the same time the Federal government was releasing 
     hundreds of thousands of Federal employees and contractors to 
     already grid-locked roads and packed Metro stations, Federal 
     agencies were erecting security zones and blocking off 
     streets around their facilities making the evacuation of the 
     District even more difficult.
       Thankfully, there was no secondary attack after the 
     Pentagon. But had there been one, this lack of coordination 
     could have had disastrous results and I believe illustrated 
     the need for a dedicated office within the Department.
       As the major provider of electricity to the District of 
     Columbia as well as Prince George's and Montgomery counties 
     in Maryland, Pepco has spent a significant amount of time and 
     effort on security issues since September 11. The more I look 
     at the unique challenges we face in this new environment, 
     both as Chief Executive and a Washingtonian, the more I 
     believe in the need for Senator Sarbanes' proposal.
       Thank you for your leadership on homeland security issues, 
     and I trust that you will give the National Capital Region 
     Coordination Office provision every consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John M. Derrick,
     Chairman, Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____



                            Washington Area Transit Authority,

                                Washington, DC, September 5, 2002.
     Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
     Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Lieberman: On behalf of the Washington 
     Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, I would like to express 
     our great appreciation and strong support for your efforts to 
     enhance security in the national capital region. We urge you 
     to offer an amendment to S. 2452, the ``National Homeland 
     Security and Combating Terrorism Act of 2002'' in order to 
     address the specific needs of the National Capital Region, 
     perhaps the area of greatest potential risk in the country.
       Importantly, there is not central point of coordination for 
     the many Federal entities in the region, including various 
     executive branch agencies, the Office of Homeland Security, 
     the Military District of Washington, the U.S. Congress, and 
     the judicial branch. Effective coordination within the 
     Federal government is absolutely critical in the National 
     Capital Region in light of the fact that the Federal 
     government is the region's largest employer. The recent 
     Regional Summit on Security, convened by Governor Ridge, also 
     pointed out the continuing need for effective coordination 
     among all levels of government in the National Capital 
     Region.
       The other matter of concern is the enormous challenge this 
     region faces in working constructively with the 
     Administration as it formulates security budget proposals. 
     While the Congress, through the appropriations process, has 
     generally been quite receptive to funding requirements for 
     security measures, it has been extremely difficult and 
     cumbersome to present our case to the Administration for the 
     resources needed to carry out the national strategy for 
     combating terrorism and other homeland security activities, 
     due to the highly decentralized nature of the Executive 
     Branch budget development process. The proposed amendment 
     provides a mechanism for a review of the funding resources 
     required for the region to implement the national strategy 
     for combating terrorism.
       We greatly appreciate your attention and diligence in 
     assisting the region in addressing these important issues. We 
     are all facing challenges that previously seemed unthinkable. 
     We owe you a great debt of gratitude for your leadership in 
     assisting the National Capital Region in preparing to meet 
     these challenges.
           Sincerely,
                                            Christopher Zimmerman,
     Chairman, Board of Directors.
                                  ____



                            Greater Washington Board of Trade,

                                  Washington, DC, August 23, 2002.
     Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Government Affairs, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Lieberman: Thank you for your leadership on 
     building a strong and thoughtful Department of Homeland 
     Security. As you prepare your final mark on S. 2452 we urge 
     you to include an amendment that calls for a separate office 
     for the National Capital Region within the Department. The 
     proposal is supported by many of your colleagues including 
     Senators Warner, Allen, Sarbanes and Mikulski, as well as 
     Senator Landrieu, ranking member of the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Subcommittee and Mayor Anthony Williams.
       The National Capital Region is perhaps the area of greatest 
     potential risk in the country to future terrorist attack. It 
     is the seat of government, the location of many symbolic and 
     historic structures, the venue for many high profile public 
     events attended by large numbers of people, a key tourism 
     destination that draws 18 million visitors annually and home 
     to 370,000 federal workers and hundreds of lawmakers.
       The area is unique in that it has dozens of federal 
     agencies that have been mandated to have their own emergency 
     preparedness plans. Most of these agencies have not 
     coordinated their plans with local governments or private 
     sector concerns that own and operate critical infrastructure 
     like power, telecommunications and transportation, which the 
     agencies are dependent. The region also has more than a dozen 
     separate and distinct police forces representing seventeen 
     jurisdictions and more than a dozen federal protective forces 
     that need better coordination.
       S. 2452 does not currently require the federal government 
     to coordinate with the region or intradepartmentally, leaving 
     the region and the nation's capital vulnerable. While 
     coordination efforts are improving, there clearly needs to be 
     an institutional structure in place to bring coordination to 
     the level necessary in this complex environment.
       We urge you to support the amendment to S. 2452 that will 
     create a single point of contract within the Department of 
     Homeland Security for coordination in the National Capital 
     Region. The purpose is not to supercede any planning or 
     action currently being undertaken, but only to serve as a 
     coordinator of information, a point of contact for planning 
     with the regional public and private sectors.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Robert A. Peck,
     President.
                                  ____

                                           Metropolitan Washington


                                       Council of Governments,

                                  Washington, DC, August 22, 2002.
     Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
           Chairman, Senate Committee on Government Affairs, U.S. 
                                           Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Lieberman: The Metropolitan Washington 
     Council of Governments (COG) is appreciative of your efforts 
     in strengthening the provisions of S. 2452, the National 
     Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act of 2002, as it 
     impacts the National Capital Region. In particular we endorse 
     your efforts in insuring that federal terrorism preparedness 
     and emergency response activities in the Washington, DC area 
     are coordinated in consultation with those of the Region's 
     sub-federal governments, private and non-profit entities, and 
     the public generally.
       As you are aware, COG is completing a year-long effort 
     involving hundreds of public officials and public and private 
     experts in the development of coordination and communications 
     protocols for use by state and local governments, private and 
     non-profit agencies, and other ``stakeholders'' concerned 
     about preparation for and management of terrorist and other 
     emergencies in the National Capital Region. Having a single 
     contact point for coordinating these efforts with existing 
     and proposed Federal response capacities is necessary for the 
     effective and timely protection of life and property in the 
     region.
       The proposed amendment creates a function within the 
     Department of Homeland Security which will be such a contact 
     point, allowing full communication among the Federal and sub-
     federal entities dedicated to protection of this region and 
     its citizens and coordination of their potentially supportive 
     but disparate functions without impeding the planning or 
     actions of either group.
       Additionally, the creation of such a function recognizes 
     the unique status of this region, with its strong presence of 
     the Federal government as employer, policy-initiator, and 
     potential target, as worthy of specific future Federal 
     support.
       The COG Ad Hoc Task Force on Homeland Security has 
     considered the concepts and purposes contained in this 
     proposed amendment and supports its enactment.
       On behalf of my colleagues on the Task Force, I am pleased 
     to endorse this proposed amendment and urge you to support 
     its passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Carol Schwartz,
                                                         Chairman.

[[Page 16835]]



                          ____________________