[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1553-1571]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

   NOMINATION OF THOMAS J. RIDGE OF PENNSYLVANIA TO BE SECRETARY OF 
                           HOMELAND SECURITY

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
go into executive session to proceed to the consideration of Executive 
Calendar No. 1, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Thomas J. Ridge, of 
Pennsylvania, to be Secretary of Homeland Security.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority whip.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:20 
today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the motion to waive 
the Budget Act with respect to the Reed amendment No. 40; provided that 
immediately following that vote, Senator Daschle be recognized in order 
to offer an amendment relating to drought assistance; provided further 
that following the reporting of the amendment, Senator Cochran be 
immediately recognized in order to offer another first-degree amendment 
relating to the same subject. I further ask unanimous consent that 
there then be a total of 70 minutes of debate on both amendments, to be 
divided equally between the two sponsors of the amendments.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding 
back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Cochran 
amendment, to be followed immediately by a vote in relation to the 
Daschle amendment, with no further intervening action or debate and no 
amendments in order to either amendment prior to the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are now 
turning to consideration of the nomination of Thomas Ridge; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator will 
control 1 hour 40 minutes.
  Ms. COLLINS. Under the previous order, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  For the information of my colleagues, I expect my initial statement 
will not exceed 12 minutes.
  Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the nomination of 
Gov. Tom Ridge to be the first Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security. As chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, I 
assure my colleagues the committee thoroughly considered this 
nomination in an extensive hearing last Friday at which the nominee 
expertly and in a forthright manner answered all of the questions posed 
to him. Every member of the committee participated in the hearing at 
some point and each member was able to pose questions to Governor 
Ridge.
  Subsequently, the committee voted unanimously to report Governor 
Ridge's nomination to the full Senate. I am very pleased we are taking 
up this important assignment today.
  The United States has made substantial progress in improving homeland 
security since the terrorist attacks of September 11. The new 
Department of Homeland Security will provide the organizational 
framework to help our Nation better cope with the threat of a terrorist 
attack. September 11, 2001, underscored the concerns raised by many 
experts, including the members of the Hart-Rudman Commission who warned 
our Nation was not adequately prepared for 21st century threats but, 
rather, was still operating under a cold

[[Page 1554]]

war threat environment. The nature of the threat has changed since the 
end of the cold war. Change has brought with it the need to reorganize 
the Government in a way that will enable us to better protect our 
Nation and its citizens.
  September 11 focused our attention on homeland security. Now we 
understand all too well why it is a problem if our first responders do 
not have compatible communication systems. Interoperability has gone 
from being a buzzword to a matter of life and death. Now we understand 
the vulnerability posed by 17 million shipping containers arriving in 
the United States from ports all over the world with few of them ever 
being searched. Now we understand our Nation's 20,000 miles of land and 
sea borders present countless opportunities for those who would do us 
harm.
  We also understand we can no longer rely on an ad hoc approach to 
homeland security. Currently, as many as 100 Federal agencies are 
responsible in some way for homeland security. But not one has homeland 
security as its primary mission. When that many entities are 
responsible, none is really accountable and turf battles and 
bureaucratic disputes are inevitable.
  The new Department of Homeland Security will work to address these 
problems by better securing our ports, our borders, and our critical 
infrastructure. It will synthesize and analyze intelligence information 
from multiple sources. It will coordinate security activities now 
undertaken separately by agencies such as the Customs Service, the INS, 
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The new Department will 
help remedy many of the current organizational weaknesses in order to 
better protect us against future attacks.
  Congress's passage of legislation creating this new Department was 
only the first step in what will be a long and difficult process. The 
homeland security effort will take all of us working together as a 
team--the administration, the new Secretary, and the Congress--to 
ensure the success of this massive reorganization. This effort will 
require the new Secretary to overcome unique challenges. The 
Department's leadership will have to address management and 
reorganization issues, as well as issues related to integrating the 
various agencies, each with differing work rules, information 
technology systems, and cultures.
  In addition to these challenges, the new Secretary must also ensure 
that the nonhomeland security functions moving to the Department are 
not neglected. For example, it is critically important to my home State 
of Maine and to coastal communities throughout our Nation that the 
Coast Guard's new homeland security responsibilities not divert its 
attention from its traditional role, including search and rescue 
missions. In a given year, the Coast Guard performs over 39,000 search 
and rescue missions.
  Just recently, the Coast Guard was involved in a rescue of two 
fishermen from a fishing island off the coast of Maine. On a typical 
day, the Coast Guard saves 10 lives, interdicts 14 illegal immigrants, 
inspects and repairs 135 buoys, and helps more than 2,500 commercial 
ships navigate into and out of U.S. ports.
  Because of the vital importance of these functions, Senator Stevens 
and I worked with many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
include strong language in the new Homeland Security Act to ensure that 
the Coast Guard will continue to make search and rescue and other 
traditional missions a priority, not an afterthought.
  Another challenge for the new Department will be to effectively 
support those men and women who are on the front lines, our Nation's 2 
million first responders, including our police officers, our 
firefighters, and our emergency medical personnel. The Homeland 
Security Act establishes a new office for State and local government 
coordination, but it offers no assurance that the new Department will 
coordinate and communicate effectively with our Nation's first 
responders.
  Ensuring that our partners at the State and local level have 
sufficient attention, resources, and cooperation will require more 
work.
  This is another advantage that Governor Ridge brings to this 
important job. As a Governor, he understands better than most people 
how important the role played by State and local governments is to our 
national security.
  The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security will be the 
most significant restructuring of the Federal Government in more than 
50 years. It is the most important reorganization since Congress 
created the Department of Defense in 1947. It will involve the merger 
of 22 Federal agencies and some 170,000 employees. Managing this 
Department will pose extraordinary challenges.
  Fortunately, we have before us a man of extraordinary capacity in 
Gov. Tom Ridge. Governor Ridge's resume is impressive. In addition to 
his current service as assistant to the President for homeland 
security, Governor Ridge twice was elected as Governor of Pennsylvania, 
served six terms in the Congress, and worked as an assistant district 
attorney in Pennsylvania. His resume speaks to the management and 
leadership skills that he possesses which will be necessary to make 
this effort successful.
  Perhaps the clearest indication of Governor Ridge's character is 
something that you won't find on his resume. It is the story of his 
service in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam war. Governor Ridge was one 
of the few, if not the only, graduate of Harvard who served in Vietnam 
as an enlisted man, and he did so with great distinction. Infantry 
Staff Sergeant Ridge was awarded a Bronze Star for valor. These are 
impressive credentials that speak to the character of a remarkable man.
  The new Department will not make us safer overnight, but its 
establishment must lead, and I believe will lead, to new capabilities 
that will make our Nation secure under the very capable leadership of 
Tom Ridge. Our goal must be a department that enables our country to 
better deter, detect, prepare for, and, if necessary, respond to a 
terrorist attack.
  To attain this goal will require not only extraordinary leadership 
from the new Secretary but also the cooperation of the agencies 
transferred to the new Department and the full support of the Congress. 
Ultimately, the success of the new Department rests not just on the 
broad shoulders of Governor Ridge but on all of us.
  Today I am hopeful the Senate will take an important step forward in 
making our homeland safer and more secure by promptly confirming 
Governor Ridge. We are asked to confirm Governor Ridge for a Cabinet 
post that may well be the most challenging position created by Congress 
during the last 50 years. I can't think of a better person to have at 
the helm of this new Department when it opens its doors this Friday 
than Governor Ridge.
  For this reason it is important we act promptly so the new Department 
opens on Friday with a new Secretary firmly in control. I urge my 
colleagues to support the confirmation of Governor Ridge as Secretary 
of Homeland Security. In my judgment, the President could not have made 
a better choice for this critically important position.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to the 
Senator from Maine. I can't think of a better person to have on my 
side, if I were Governor Ridge, than the distinguished junior Senator 
from Maine. If I were feeling otherwise, I would be almost persuaded--
remembering that old Baptist hymn we used to sing in West Virginia, 
``Almost Persuaded,'' I would be almost persuaded to vote for him, if I 
had intended to otherwise. In this case, I think I will join her in 
voting for Governor Ridge.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. So I salute her.
  Now that the nomination has been reported unanimously to the Senate 
by the Governmental Affairs Committee, it seems certain that Tom Ridge 
will be confirmed by an overwhelming margin to be the Nation's first 
Secretary of Homeland Security.
  And, while organizing 28 agencies--some say 22. I have heard that 
there

[[Page 1555]]

are 28 agencies and offices--within a new Homeland Security Department 
will be a difficult task, to say the least, Senators seem to be 
confident that Governor Ridge is qualified to handle the job. I think 
that is the case. Governor Ridge appears to have the necessary 
qualities and experience to serve admirably as the first Secretary of 
Homeland Security. But I hope he understands that his new job 
responsibilities will involve more than just overseeing a new 
Department intended to protect our homeland.
  Despite the objections of some Senators, this new Homeland Security 
Department has been empowered with wide-ranging authorities, and its 
officers will have prime access to information about the American 
public. With that access comes the potential for abuse.
  We have already seen the administration pushing the legal envelope in 
the fight against terrorism--so much so that phrases such as ``enemy 
combatants,'' ``material witness warrants,'' and ``military tribunals'' 
have become synonymous with terrorist-related arrests here at home. We 
have seen the development of a parallel legal system for both U.S. 
citizens and noncitizens in which terrorist suspects may be 
investigated, jailed, tried, and punished without the legal protections 
long guaranteed by the American legal system.
  Given the origins of this new Homeland Security Department--from the 
crafting of a secret plan in the bowels of the White House, to the 
refusal of the Homeland Security Director to testify before the 
Congress, to the expanding cloak of secrecy that has fallen over this 
administration--it is essential that Governor Ridge understand that he 
will be responsible not only for defending the homeland but also for 
defending against the abuse of power inside the new department.
  As the department's first Secretary, Governor Ridge will set the 
precedents for how this new department uses its authorities in the name 
of homeland security. How far this department can peer into the lives 
of the American public will, in large part, be influenced by Governor 
Ridge.
  The Congress will continue to perform its oversight role and to be on 
the lookout for abuses of power. But Senators will vote to confirm 
Governor Ridge today with the expectation that he understands and 
respects the oversight role of the Congress, and that he will never 
mislead the people's representatives or the people themselves about the 
actions of the department.
  Most importantly, when the Senate votes to confirm Governor Ridge 
today, as I believe it will, it should be with the expectation that he 
respect the constitutional doctrines of checks and balances and 
separation of powers.
  We have seen this administration running the Federal Government, to a 
disconcerting degree, from within the confines of the White House. We 
have seen how the President's advisors--whether they be his economic 
advisors, his national security advisors, or his homeland security 
advisors--can direct numerous Government actions, insulated from the 
Congress and the American public, by keeping the decisionmaking process 
inside of the Oval Office.
  Over the last year, the White House has scrupulously avoided 
answering the questions of the Congress, as this branch has tried to 
assess our Nation's homeland security vulnerabilities. It is this 
body--this body--that must pass laws and provide funds to tighten up 
our borders, to hire inspectors, to buy vaccines, to prevent more 
terrorist attacks. But all too much, when we have looked for 
information on which to base our decisions from this administration, 
our requests have largely been denied. So today, we will vote to 
confirm Governor Ridge to be Secretary of Homeland Security and to 
answerable to us--answerable to the Congress, to both House of 
Congress--and to the people we represent.
  This new department must not be just a public relations front, while 
the real work of debate on strategies and crafting of policies is being 
conducted inside the Executive Office of the President, protected from 
public scrutiny. The decisionmaking process with regard to the safety 
of our communities must remain open to the public, not hidden away. 
This is the only way that we can work to ensure that our Government 
operates within the legal boundaries established by the Congress, and 
that it does not threaten the privacy rights and civil liberties of the 
American public. That is the only way that we can be sure that this 
massive new department, in which so many have invested so must hope, 
actually does what it is supposed to do.
  I intend to support the nomination of Governor Ridge, and I will do 
so with the hope he understands that he is charged with not only 
protecting the American public from overzealous terrorists but also 
with protecting their civil liberties from an overzealous new 
bureaucracy. And only time will tell. But time will tell. And so I 
express my support and shall cast my vote with the fervent hope that 
Governor Ridge will not blindly follow the President but that he will 
respect the institutional role of the Congress and be faithful to the 
Constitution and to the people whose liberties and safety may depend 
upon the decisions he, Mr. Ridge, will make.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield as much time as he would like to 
the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished chair of the committee and I 
begin by congratulating her on her accession to the Chairmanship. Her 
distinguished career began as a staffer for the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs. Senator Collins is now the chairwoman--a very 
significant advance.
  I have sought recognition to support the nomination of Governor Tom 
Ridge to be Secretary of Homeland Security. Tom Ridge embodies the 
classic American success story. He was born in very modest 
circumstances--an occupant of public housing as a youngster; Harvard 
educated, he served as an enlisted man in the Vietnam war, and was 
honored with medals for his distinguished service. With outstanding 
academic credentials from Dickinson Law School, Governor Ridge became 
an experienced assistant district attorney--which, I might add, is a 
very important developmental office. Sometimes I am asked what office I 
consider more important, being district attorney of Philadelphia or 
being a U.S. Senator. I am quick to respond that, for me, the most 
important office was assistant district attorney, with the development 
of trial skills, analysis, and organization.
  Tom Ridge was an outstanding prosecuting attorney. He came to the 
Congress of the United States in 1982. I have worked closely with 
Governor Ridge for the past 20 years plus. He was an outstanding two-
term Governor in Pennsylvania, enjoying great popularity and great 
success.
  Shortly after September 11, 2001, when Governor Ridge received a call 
from his former gubernatorial colleague--now President Bush--to take on 
the job as Presidential Adviser of Homeland Security, Governor Ridge 
responded as a great patriot, taking on the very difficult job of 
coordinating the affairs on homeland security.
  With the Department scheduled to come into existence on January 25, 
it is very important that we move ahead promptly with his confirmation. 
It is my expectation that the vote will be overwhelming, if not 
unanimous. We had a hearing last Friday in the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. Rules were waived to send the matter to the floor at an 
early date. I am pleased to see that the majority leader has listed the 
issue for resolution today.
  It is my hope that Governor Ridge will find, in this new position, 
the ability in our Federal Government to put all of the so-called dots 
on the board at the same time. It is my judgment that the Secretary of 
Homeland Security needs a somewhat broader authority than the position 
has at the present time institutionally.
  I had filed an amendment to the homeland security bill which would 
give the Secretary the authority to direct all of the intelligence 
agencies--the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and all 
other agencies--so that the analytical aspects of the work would be 
under one umbrella:

[[Page 1556]]

Let the CIA conduct their work worldwide, let the FBI undertake their 
traditional role, and let the Defense Intelligence Agency undertake its 
regular duties as all of the intelligence agencies continue functioning 
operationally. But when it comes to analysis, it is my view that all 
ought to be under one umbrella.
  Governor Ridge testified that there is excellent coordination among 
the intelligence agencies at the present time. He testified last Friday 
candidly, but he couldn't say what had happened before he came to the 
scene. I commented in my discussion with Governor Ridge during his 
confirmation proceedings that he cannot say what would happen after he 
left, that it is not a matter of personalities. The relationship 
between Governor Ridge and President Bush, which is a very close 
relationship, enhances Governor Ridge's ability to gather information 
from the other intelligence agencies. But institutionally, we have to 
be prepared for the day when the relationships might not be that close. 
We are a government of laws, not a government of men; a government of 
relationships defined by statute, and not depending upon personal 
relationships.
  It is my view that had all of the so-called dots been on the same 
board prior to September 11, September 11 could have been avoided.
  We now know about the famous FBI Phoenix report from the summer of 
2001 which was lost in the FBI bureaucracy. We now know more about the 
effort of the Minneapolis field office of the FBI to secure a warrant 
for Zacarias Moussaoui under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. 
The wrong standard was applied. They were looking for 15 percent--more 
probable than not when the case law is that there has to be suspicion 
only founded on the totality of the facts. We know the CIA had 
information about two men in Kuala Lumpur which was not conveyed to the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service or the FBI. Those men got into 
the United States and were on two of the suicide bomber planes on 9/11. 
We know the National Security Agency received a report on September 10 
that something was to happen the next day. It wasn't translated until 
September 12.
  So if all of these so-called dots had been on the board, I think the 
acts of 9/11 could have been prevented.
  The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency testified last fall 
that another attack would occur. I do not believe we have to concede 
that. I do not believe we have to await another attack. I believe our 
fundamental job is to prevent an attack. We do have intelligence 
agencies where improvements have been made, and we need the cooperation 
among all of the intelligence agencies to put all of these so-called 
dots on the same board. It is my hope that Governor Ridge will 
ultimately have that authority. As I said at the hearing on Friday, I 
intend to offer that amendment and pursue it through the legislative 
process in committee and to bring it to the floor of the Senate.
  The issue of labor relations was also a matter discussed at the 
hearing. There is no doubt about the President's need for a national 
security waiver. But it is my view that that is a Presidential judgment 
and a Presidential decision and that, to the extent possible, the 
traditional labor-management laws of the United States ought to be 
followed unless there is a real national security interest as 
determined by the President in light of our very difficult war against 
terrorism and against al-Qaida.
  I am pleased to see a man of Governor Ridge's competency coming to 
this position. The toughest job is to stop calling him Governor Ridge 
and to start calling him Secretary Ridge. But we are going to start 
that tomorrow as he takes on perhaps as tough a job as there is in 
Washington, DC, today.
  I don't think I have to urge my colleagues to support this 
nomination. I think the vote will be overwhelming, if not unanimous. I 
want to add my voice in support of Governor Ridge because I have known 
him a long time and have firsthand experience as to his competency, and 
to express my concerns about the operation of the Department as we move 
ahead on this very vital war against terrorism.
  I thank the chairwoman and yield the floor.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for 
his comments, for his introduction of Governor Ridge at the hearing 
last Friday, and for his participation as a member of the committee. We 
are indeed fortunate to have the benefit of his expertise.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from 
North Dakota delivers his remarks, the Senator from Alabama be 
recognized next for as long as he needs, with a limit of 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first let me say I am pleased to announce 
that I will vote for Governor Ridge, to confirm Governor Ridge for the 
position of Secretary of Homeland Security.
  I have known Governor Ridge for a long while. I served with him in 
the House of Representatives. I think he is a public servant with great 
skill and great dedication. I am very pleased to see him continue to 
offer himself for public service. I am very pleased to cast a vote in 
favor of his nomination. It is a good one. I commend President Bush for 
sending it to us. And I think he will be confirmed overwhelmingly by 
the Senate, if not unanimously.
  Let me, however, say there are several things I am concerned about 
with respect to homeland security. And it mirrors some of the 
suggestions offered by my colleague just moments ago.
  I want to say--as I indicate I am proud to vote for Governor Ridge--
there are three areas I hope very much we will make some significant 
improvements in and for. Let me describe them.
  First and foremost for me is information sharing. The task force 
headed by former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart, on October 25, 
issued a report to this country. The report was titled ``America Still 
Unprepared--America Still in Danger.'' It was a bipartisan task force 
sponsored by the Council of Foreign Relations, which included former 
Secretaries of State George Shultz and Warren Christopher; retired ADM 
William Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and many 
others.
  They found that 1 year after the September 11 attacks, America 
remains dangerously unprepared for another terrorist attack. At the top 
of their concerns--the top of their list--was this:

       650,000 local and state police officials continue to 
     operate in a virtual intelligence vacuum, without access to a 
     terrorist watch list provided by the U.S. Department of State 
     that goes to immigration and consular officials.

  Let me say that again. The watch list--the list that the Department 
of State has, that has on it names of terrorists and suspected 
terrorists--that list is not available to State and local law 
enforcement officials across this country. And the Rudman-Hart report 
says you have 650,000 additional eyes and ears out there in law 
enforcement that ought to be able to access that report.
  To give you an example, 36 hours before September 11 and those 
devastating attacks, one of the hijackers, Ziad Jarrah, a 26-year-old 
Lebanese national, who was flying the airplane that crashed in 
Pennsylvania, was pulled over on Interstate 95 in the State of Maryland 
by a Maryland State Police trooper for driving 90 miles an hour. He was 
one of the key organizers of the al-Qaida terrorist cell formed in 
Germany 3 years ago. He shared a Hamburg apartment with Mohammed Atta. 
And he was at the controls of flight 93.
  When this hijacker was pulled over by a Maryland trooper, he was 
driving a rented car under his own name. This hijacker, it turns out, 
was not on the watch list. But if he had been--and there is no reason 
to think he would not have been, given today's circumstances--that 
Maryland trooper would have had no idea and no access to the 
information that he had just pulled over someone who was a known 
terrorist, a suspected terrorist.

[[Page 1557]]

  If this afternoon, in Fargo, ND, a city police officer or a county 
sheriff or a highway patrolman pulls over an automobile, and it is 
filled with four people who snuck across the United States-Canadian 
border in some remote area of our country, and those four people are on 
the terrorist watch list, a list compiled by the State Department, that 
city police officer or county sheriff will have no access to that 
information. They can call in and get the NCIC and find out who has 
been convicted of a felony and who has outstanding warrants, but they 
are not able to get to the names on the State Department's watch list 
of who the terrorists are, the known terrorists and suspected 
terrorists. That is unforgivable, in my judgment.
  Let me read a detailed excerpt from the Hart-Rudman report:

       With just fifty-six field offices around the nation, the 
     burden of identifying and intercepting terrorists in our 
     midst is a task well beyond the scope of the FBI. This burden 
     could and should be shared with 650,000 local, county, and 
     state law enforcement officers, but they clearly cannot lend 
     a hand in [the] counterterrorism information void [that now 
     exists because] when it comes to combating terrorism, the 
     police officers on the beat are effectively operating deaf, 
     dumb, and blind.

  Why? Because we have a list with the names of terrorists on it, and 
the names of suspected terrorists on it, and the police officers and 
the county sheriffs and the highway patrolmen have no access to that 
list and are not allowed to have access to that list. That is wrong.
  Let me continue quoting from the Hart-Rudman report:

       Terrorist watch lists provided by the U.S. Department of 
     State to [the U.S.] immigration [folks] and consular 
     officials are still out of bounds for state and local police. 
     In the interim period as information sharing issues get 
     worked out, known terrorists will be free to move about to 
     plan and execute their attacks.

  Even when they are stopped by local police officers, and even when 
their names are run against the NCIC, those local law enforcement 
officials have no ability, no capability, to run those names against 
the watch list that contains the names of terrorists and suspected 
terrorists.
  This needs to get fixed. I hope Governor Ridge makes this a first 
priority. This was the top recommendation of this blue ribbon 
commission that says America is unprepared. This was their top 
recommendation. And months after it was issued, to the best I can 
understand, very little is happening in the administration to resolve 
this. I believe very strongly it needs to be resolved, and soon.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight and a half minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make two additional points.
  One of them is a point I have made many times on the floor of the 
Senate, and that is the issue of container security. We are spending 
about $8 billion to do something called a national missile defense 
plan, so that if there is an intercontinental ballistic missile aimed 
at the United States, and shot at us by a terrorist somewhere in the 
world, we can send up another missile, and with our $8 billion, we will 
hit a bullet with a bullet. That is the proposition, in any event.
  It is very unlikely, of course, that a terrorist group is going to 
have access to an intercontinental ballistic missile, but we are 
spending $8 billion dealing with that and rogue states having access to 
those missiles.
  A more likely threat, according to most people, is not a 15,000-mile-
an-hour missile aimed at our country with a nuclear warhead; a more 
likely threat is a container on a container ship, slowly but surely, at 
2 miles an hour, pulling up to a dock in New York City or Los Angeles 
or San Diego or Seattle, with a container in the middle of all the 
containers on that ship containing a dirty bomb or a nuclear weapon.
  Mr. President, 5.7 million of those containers come into this country 
each and every year; 100,000 of them are inspected, 5.6 million are 
not.
  I happen to have toured a port a couple of times. I come from a State 
that is landlocked. I do not know much about ports, so I have done a 
couple tours. I have great admiration for Customs and others working on 
those docks, in those ports. During a tour, I recall asking them: What 
is in this container? They said: We don't know, but let us show you 
what we're doing with some containers. They took me to a garage-like 
structure and opened one container that had frozen broccoli from 
Poland. That was the first time I had seen frozen broccoli from Poland 
in 100-pound bags, destined, I suppose, for the restaurants across 
America.
  They pulled out a couple bags and opened them. Sure enough, it was 
frozen broccoli from Poland. I asked: How do you know what is in the 
middle bag in the middle of this container? They said: We don't. I 
asked: How many of these do you inspect? They said: Two percent of all 
containers we inspect.
  The fact is, we need to do better because our ports, our big cities 
are under threat of terrorist acts, where terrorists using a container, 
put in a container ship, could come into one of our ports with a weapon 
of mass destruction immersed in one of those containers.
  We have heard about the suspected terrorist who actually put himself 
in a container and put himself on a container ship, took with him some 
water, something to sleep on, a cot, a computer, wireless satellite 
telephones, and food, and then shipped himself to Toronto, Canada, 
probably with the intention of going from the Middle East to Canada and 
then sneaking into this country. But the point is, he was discovered. 
But he put himself in a container on a container ship with all the 
comforts of home, shipping himself to Canada.
  My point is, if we care about the security of this country and care 
about defeating terrorists, care about identifying and thwarting 
terrorist acts, then we have to care a great deal about port security.
  The fact is, we are not funding it. This bill that is before us has 
cut funding once again. People say we are adding funding. The fact is, 
we have cut the funding that the Customs Service says they need. It has 
just been cut. And we try to add it back, and we lose the vote.
  But, look, this isn't about spending; it is about protecting our 
country. We cannot turn a blind eye to port security and say that 
somehow we have done what is necessary to defend this country. I hope 
Governor Ridge comes in and understands that is a very difficult issue 
but one that we have to address in a very aggressive way.
  Finally, let me talk about northern border security, border security 
generally but northern border security specifically.
  With respect to our borders, it is true that a country cannot defend 
itself if it does not control its borders. It is the case, for example, 
that we have had 10 times as many Border Patrol agents on the southern 
border between the United States and Mexico as we have had on the 
northern border. We have done that for many years because of 
immigration and drug problems.
  The fact is, the danger today is more than just that. The danger 
today is the potential of terrorists sneaking into this country and 
committing an act of terrorism. We have 4 or 5,000 miles of border 
between the United States and Canada, a long border between two 
countries that get along well.
  Up in my part of the country where we have border stations in the 
northern part of North Dakota, those stations close in many cases at 10 
at night. Up until a year or so ago, the only thing that existed, once 
those stations closed, was an orange cone in the middle of the road. 
The impolite people who snuck into this country could shred that cone 
at 60 miles an hour. The polite ones at least stopped to remove the 
cone and put it back in place.
  We have changed some of that but not enough. This is a long, porous 
border. If this country is going to provide the security it needs for 
the American people, then it has to have control of its borders. That 
means we have to fund the Customs Service, the Immigration Service, and 
the Border Patrol and have the coordination of those agencies that work 
together to do the job they know needs doing.

[[Page 1558]]

  I am pleased to support Governor Ridge. I have great confidence in 
him. He is a great public servant. I am proud to say yes when they call 
the vote. He needs the tools. This man needs the tools to do the job. 
You can't provide the kind of support we need for this country and the 
kind of investment we need to make sure we have security at our ports 
and airports, nuclear facilities, trains, and so on, you can't do that 
on the cheap.
  One day--I pray this will not happen--another terrorist act may occur 
and something that we have failed to do here, something that we know we 
should have done will be pointed out as a flaw in the system. They knew 
this could happen, but they didn't do anything about it.
  Let's make these investments now: Port security, watch lists, giving 
access to all of the law enforcement people, the names of terrorists 
and suspected terrorists, border security. Yes, at the southern border 
but also the northern border. Let's do these things together. We know 
right now that Osama bin Laden is somewhere in this world. At least we 
are told they think he is still alive.
  Osama has been forgotten by some. The fact is, Osama bin Laden is a 
dangerous guy. We don't know where he is. We don't know where Omar is. 
The terrorist al-Qaida cells are still a very serious problem. Homeland 
security is critically important. That is why I support this 
nomination.
  This nominee is a quality person who can do this job, but he can't do 
this job without the tools. We, the administration and the Congress, 
have to own up to that and make the investments necessary that will 
protect this country against the threat of terrorists.
  Just a couple of months ago, the head of the FBI said the danger of a 
terrorist attack is as high today or higher than it was September 10, 
the day before the devastating terrorist attacks.
  I am proud to vote for Governor Ridge. I wish him well. I want to 
help him. I hope this administration and this Congress will do what is 
right to make the investments necessary to protect our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the 
Senator from Alabama has concluded his remarks, the Senator from 
Nebraska be recognized for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to express my admiration for 
Governor Ridge. I have over the weeks and months observed him in his 
leadership role. I believe he has performed exceptionally well. This 
Nation was attacked on September 11. We remember that vividly. We also 
remember the Nation's determination to do a better job of protecting 
our homeland.
  The President looked all over the country. He picked somebody to lead 
the effort to bring together State and local and Federal agencies in a 
way that would enhance dramatically our ability to be safe from 
terrorist attack. It was not talk he wanted; he wanted leadership, he 
wanted action. So, he created the Office of Homeland Security in the 
White House right next to him.
  He chose to head that critical agency someone he knew, someone he had 
grown to respect as a fellow Governor who had a record of achievement 
and excellence and professionalism. He chose a man who understood State 
agencies as well as Federal agencies. He chose a man who served in the 
U.S. Congress and who had served in the military, winning combat medals 
for his actions in Vietnam. He chose the kind of person we needed at 
that time.
  It was a thankless task. Many said it could not be done. Many said we 
would not be able to prevent further attacks. Anybody taking that job 
had to know that they were taking great personal risk because anything 
that did happen would be their fault. They would have to answer for it.
  I am so impressed with Governor Ridge. He took charge aggressively. 
He changed the way this Government did business. He took control of the 
situation by meeting with the heads of the Government agencies.
  I used to be a Federal prosecutor for 15 years. I worked with the FBI 
and the DEA and Customs and the Coast Guard and all those Federal 
agencies--ATF, Secret Service, all of them. They act at times like 
foreign nations. They produce memoranda of understanding that are like 
treaties. It is difficult to make a move. They have their own agendas. 
They are charged by Congress to do A and B and C, and they are not 
interested in doing D. Maybe they should.
  Tom Ridge took charge and dealt with the leadership of those 
agencies. Barriers were broken down to an unprecedented degree. Despite 
obvious results that we wish had been achieved but were not able to be 
accomplished, tremendous things were accomplished under the President's 
unequivocal leadership and the efficiency and leadership of Governor 
Ridge. I am proud of Tom and excited to have him take on that job.
  Now that we have moved to the Department of Homeland Security with 
170,000 people, I want to say this--I have shared this thought with 
him; I think he comprehends it--this Congress is not moving blocks and 
departments and governmental entities all cobbled together into some 
giant agency and just expecting it to be better than it was before. The 
very fact they are now one agency with one mission, should on balance 
clearly make the Department more efficient in our fight against terror. 
They have individual institutional biases and tendencies that may not 
be perfectly compatible with this new agency. It is going to take 
strong leadership. We don't need excessive administration.
  I expect and believe and am excited about the potential for Governor 
Ridge to use the force of his will, to use the mandate this Congress 
has given him, to use the confidence and support the President has in 
him to make sure those agencies realize, when they come together, that 
it is now a new organization, and we expect the greatest efficiency 
possible.
  We expect the mission we have assigned to this agency will be the No. 
1 guiding factor to make America safe, and we want them not to focus on 
bureaucracies and special interests and labor rules, but focus on 
making this country safe. I believe Governor Ridge understands that 
mission, and he is going to work with the employees to reach a higher 
degree of productivity than we have ever had.
  I thank Senator Collins for her leadership. She is a master of this 
subject and has worked so hard at it. I will not say anymore. I am 
excited about the potential of this agency. We would like to see, 
frankly, this agency set a new standard for governmental efficiency and 
productivity. There is an opportunity here to do better. I believe we 
can. I am excited, and I will be supporting Governor Ridge.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine 
for the opportunity to address the nomination of my good friend, 
Governor Ridge, for this important position that has been created to 
take care of homeland security.
  I rise in support of the nomination for a number of reasons. While we 
were Governors, for 4 years we worked together within the Governors 
Association to make sure our States were taken care of; that the 
economies of the States were directed in an appropriate fashion; that 
we worked together to make clear the State issues before the Congress 
of the United States.
  In that experience, I had the opportunity to see firsthand Governor 
Ridge at work for the benefit of his State and for our country. In the 
last few months, I have had that same experience of seeing him at work 
in his new role of developing the homeland security strategy, the 
homeland security approach that I think will truly bring about homeland 
security.
  His background enables him in a very unique way to bring together 
local,

[[Page 1559]]

State, and Federal agencies. It is truly an honor for me to be here 
today to say I am proud to support his nomination, and I look forward 
to working with him.
  Last year, as we were finishing up the second session of the 107th 
Congress, Governor Ridge came to Nebraska and looked at the University 
of Nebraska Medical Center as a possible site for a biomedical 
laboratory as part of the homeland security effort to make sure we have 
the capacity to deal with any kind of bioterrorism that would require 
medical treatment and for the detection of bioterrorist activity.
  While he was there, we had an opportunity to look at the facility but 
I think in a broader sense of what we need to have in terms of 
laboratories around the country to work with the CDC and to work with 
others in this new role.
  At the end of the year, we also had what appeared to be somewhat of a 
grab for one of those institutions in another part of our country. The 
then-majority leader agreed with a number of us that we would have a 
way to deal with this in a compromise this year. That majority leader 
passed it on to Senator Frist, the new majority leader, to work this 
through.
  A good-faith effort has been made--I am not totally convinced the 
language is as strong as I would like to see it, but clearly a good-
faith effort has been made to resolve this issue so that the playing 
field is level so other institutions will be able to compete fairly to 
have the biomedical lab in their location based on the criteria.
  To give an idea of how strong and supportive I am of Governor Ridge, 
I have been supportive of giving him, if you will, the total authority 
to set the criteria so that we do not set the criteria by law but he 
can by rule and regulation set the criteria and make the determination. 
That is the kind of support I think this gentleman will have from this 
Congress in so many different ways because of what he has been able to 
show and reflect in his work thus far. There will be total support 
along the way.
  I am looking forward to the days ahead to work with Governor Ridge as 
he becomes Secretary Ridge in this very important responsibility.
  On another matter related to this--and I do not come to the floor 
very often to talk about partisan politics or to respond to those 
partisan arguments that are sometimes made. I think typically they tend 
to derail us, distract us, and detract from the subject of the day. So 
yesterday when I heard someone talking about a partisan deficit as 
opposed to a deficit because some of us were supportive of 
firefighters, some of us were supportive of first responders and of 
police officers on the spot--recognizing that we ought not to simply 
have our pictures taken with these first responders as a matter of 
publicity or as a matter of PR; what we should, in fact, do is make 
sure we are supporting them financially--I was dismayed by what I heard 
and what I saw on a chart.
  I wish to respond today because I think if we are going to focus on 
what homeland security is about, what Governor Ridge is focused on, it 
is about hometown security. If we are not secure in our hometowns, if 
we are not supportive financially in every way we possibly can, if we 
are not responding at the hometown level, the police officers, the 
firefighters, and the first responders of the emergency service workers 
and all those who protect our water supply and who protect our food 
supply, we are not going to have homeland security. That is what it has 
been about these last several days. We may have different ideas about 
doing it, we may have a different philosophy whether we do it through 
this budget or whether we do it in another budget, but that is 
different than to say it is a growing partisan deficit caused by one 
group versus another.
  If we are not going to support our firefighters and we are not going 
to support our police officers at the local level, then we ought not 
say we are for homeland security. One cannot be for homeland security 
if one is not for hometown security.
  The fact is, there may be disagreements, but I think we ought to set 
aside the partisan rhetoric and work together to find a way to fund 
these very important services rather than to talk in a global sense, in 
a broad sense about homeland security. It sounds great, but the only 
way it works is if we are focused on what is happening in Charlotte, 
NC, what is happening in Lincoln, NE, what is happening in Bangor, ME--
what is happening in the localities across our country. If we do not 
have security at the local level, this homeland is not secure, and none 
of us are truly safe.
  I thank the Chair. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the 
remainder of the debate on the nomination of Tom Ridge to be the new 
Secretary of Homeland Security, that any quorum calls be charged 
equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, 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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 2 minutes of 
the time set aside for Senator Lieberman be allotted to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, Tom Ridge and I came together to 
Washington in 1982. We were new Members of Congress 20-plus years ago. 
He was a fine Member of Congress. He had the ability to work across 
party lines. When he became Governor of the State of Pennsylvania, I 
was excited for him. From all reports I have been able to obtain, he 
did a good job as Governor of the State of Pennsylvania.
  When President Bush suggested he be head of the program to protect 
the American people from terrorists, I told the President I thought it 
was a good appointment, and I told Governor Ridge I thought it was 
important he make the change from becoming Governor to becoming the 
head of the new Department of Homeland Security.
  His job has now been created as a Cabinet-level office, and I think 
Tom Ridge has earned his stripes. There are things he has done I have 
not totally agreed with, but most everything he has done I have agreed.
  When he became head of this Department, I told Tom Ridge I would sit 
back and not cry out for a Cabinet-level office, but the determination 
was made by him, the President, and many others that there needed to be 
a Cabinet-level office created. I am glad that has happened. Tom Ridge 
will be a fine Secretary. He is a good man. He will have awesome 
responsibilities. This will not be an easy task. Secretary Ridge has 
the difficult job of merging the many departments, agencies and offices 
that now comprise the Department of Homeland Security.
  I stand ready to help him as he seeks to complete this monumental 
undertaking.
  We simply must not rest because we passed legislation to create the 
Department of Homeland Security. This law provides the framework for 
the new department, but only the new Secretary can take the pieces of 
the new department and make them function as a single, committed 
agency.
  In Nevada, we still have daunting challenges and unfulfilled 
opportunities. I look forward to working with Governor Ridge to address 
these.

[[Page 1560]]

  In particular, Nevada is faced with diminishing Federal resources and 
increasing State budget deficits at the same time that it must address 
new homeland security responsibilities. In fact, Nevada ranks near the 
bottom in the country in terms of funding for State homeland security 
efforts. With millions of tourists each year, this places an extra 
burden on Nevada. Most funding for emergency responders is based on 
population. But population alone does not determine the vulnerability 
of a city like Las Vegas.
  At the Nevada Test Site, Nevada also has one of the Nation's premier 
centers for training emergency responders and other special counter-
terrorism forces. Last February, Governor Ridge accepted my invitation 
and came to Nevada to observe the excellent training and counter-
terrorism facilities at the Nevada Test Site. In the coming year, I 
look forward to having Governor Ridge return and putting the full 
resources of the administration behind his project.
  Protecting our nation from a future terrorist attack will not be an 
easy task. Having a Secretary for the Homeland Security Department in 
place will ensure that the process of building the new Department 
begins soon.
  As we continue to develop this new department, I look forward to 
working with Governor Ridge to ensure our Nation is secure.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The 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. I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum 
call be charged equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the understanding of the Chair.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
the nomination of Tom Ridge occur at 12:10 today, with all the other 
parameters for debate remaining. Further, I ask unanimous consent that 
immediately following the vote, the Senate then stand in recess until 
2:15 today. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate 
reconvenes at 2:15 today, there be 5 minutes for debate equally divided 
between Senators Nickles and Reed or their designees prior to the 
scheduled vote.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would add we are moving action along quite 
well. We have a number of amendments pending after we dispose of the 
Reed of Rhode Island amendment. We are working with Senator Stevens to 
get a number of votes lined up for later this afternoon. We are going 
to go to the agriculture amendment soon. That is in the previous order.
  I have had a number of inquiries made. We will probably be in late 
tonight; that means later than 7 p.m. or so. People will have to 
cooperate if they have amendments to offer. I hope they will limit the 
time on these amendments. The two leaders have spoken at some length 
today about trying to move this along. I hope people will cooperate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I look forward to the Senate's speedy 
confirmation of Governor Ridge to be the new Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security. I believe that Governor Ridge is the 
right person for the job, and I strongly support his selection to head 
the new department.
  The challenge before Governor Ridge is massive: 22 agencies with over 
170,000 people must be reassembled under one umbrella. These agencies 
and their personnel need to communicate with each other, to work 
together, and to begin retooling their operations to increase the 
protections needed to secure America's safety and well-being. Again, it 
is a massive job.
  But Governor Ridge is not the only one who needs to roll up his 
sleeves. The Congress also has work to do on homeland security, first 
by enacting legislative repairs to the Homeland Security Act. This Act 
passed at the end of the last Congress using a hastily written bill 
that discarded many important provisions that had been worked out on a 
bipartisan basis. My colleagues and I identified a number of these 
problems during Governor Ridge's confirmation hearing before the 
Governmental Affairs Committee last week.
  First, the Homeland Security Act leaves the intelligence community 
without clearly defined roles and creates the possibility for 
unnecessary and costly duplication of effort. Language addressing the 
coordination and analysis of intelligence issues was included in the 
bipartisan bill reported out of the Senate Governmental Affairs 
Committee, but the key language was dropped from the final Homeland 
Security Act. The goal of this language was to lay out clearly which 
agency had primary responsibility for analyzing information about 
foreign intelligence, and avoid having the new Department of Homeland 
Security duplicate the work of the Counter Terrorist Center, or CTC, at 
the CIA. Specifically, the language would have provided that the CTC 
has the primary responsibility for analysis of foreign intelligence and 
gave the DHS the primary responsibility of taking that foreign 
intelligence and mapping it against threats to the U.S.
  At his confirmation hearing, Governor Ridge indicated that he agreed 
with maintaining the CTC's primary role on analyzing foreign 
intelligence. In fact, when I asked Governor Ridge: ``Will you 
duplicate the CTC?'' he responded: ``It is not our intention to 
replicate the CTC with respect to foreign intelligence. Our intention 
is to use foreign intelligence from the CTC to match threats with 
vulnerabilities.'' When asked which agency was intended to have primary 
responsibility to analyze foreign intelligence, Governor Ridge 
responded: ``the CIA.'' Those were precisely the answers in the 
bipartisan Senate approach.
  On January 18, the Washington Post reported that President Bush had 
decided to ``leave responsibility for collecting and analyzing foreign 
intelligence on terrorists with the CIA, and to have the homeland 
security agency perform further analysis aimed at protecting U.S. 
infrastructure.'' Again, this is exactly the approach taken in the 
earlier, bipartisan Senate bill. I am hopeful that the Department will 
continue to follow the framework set out by the President and Governor 
Ridge, and that he and the Congress will take any steps needed to 
restore the clear language on intelligence responsibilities in the 
Homeland Security Act.
  A second problem I have with the Homeland Security Act is the section 
of the law that exempts the agency from complying with some aspects of 
the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, the key Federal statute helping 
the public keep track of what their government is doing. Government 
bureaucrats often don't like FOIA requests because they take time and 
resources to answer. Many would like to reduce the public's right to 
know.
  That's what happened in the Homeland Security Act. Language was added 
to that law that unnecessarily limits the use of FOIA.
  Last year, Senators Leahy, Bennett, and I worked out a FOIA 
compromise which was included in the original Senate Governmental 
Affairs Committee bill. At the homeland security mark-up, we were told 
that the Administration supported our compromise language. But this 
compromise was ultimately dropped. Instead, the Homeland Security Act 
cuts back on the public's right to know what its government is up to by 
expanding the types of information that the new department can

[[Page 1561]]

keep shielded from the public, including unclassified information about 
``critical infrastructure'' issues involving such matters as electrical 
grids, computer systems, or water treatment facilities.
  There is a related problem with the HSA language barring use of 
critical infrastructure information in civil proceedings. Suppose the 
DHS gets information submitted by a chemical company indicating a 
chemical plant is in danger of releasing a toxic gas due to a 
vulnerability in its critical infrastructure. The statute ties the 
hands of the DHS, barring it from disclosing the information in court 
without the chemical company's consent. The statute even bars the DHS 
from giving the information to another agency such as the Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA.
  What's more, a whistleblower within the DHS or the EPA could be 
thrown in jail for disclosing this unclassified information. Even a 
member of Congress who releases the information presumably could be, 
under some circumstances, jailed! I find this to be incredible. 
Limiting the public's right to know and jailing whistleblowers isn't 
the direction we should be going and is not necessary to protect 
America.
  At the Governmental Affairs hearing, Governor Ridge seemed to agree 
that criminalizing whistleblower disclosures of unclassified critical 
infrastructure information was not the intent of the Homeland Security 
Act. I am hopeful that Governor Ridge will help us to remedy some of 
the FOIA problems caused by the Homeland Security Act and restore the 
bipartisan compromise worked out in our committee.
  Another problem requiring prompt action is to get adequate funding to 
the agencies charged with homeland security. Because of the failure of 
Congress to pass appropriations bills, the key Federal agencies at the 
front lines of protecting our homeland have gone underfunded in the 
first 3 months of this fiscal year. Now, the Republican majority has 
come up with an Omnibus Appropriations bill that inadequately funds 
vital homeland security needs for FY 2003. For example, $362 million is 
not provided to the INS for the Entry-Exit system, which would track 
the arrival and departure of non U.S. citizens; $265 million is cut 
from the INS for construction of border security facilities; $92 
million is not provided for FBI information technology enhancements; $8 
million is cut from the Customs Service container security initiative; 
and $132 million is cut from FEMA first responders. I supported an 
amendment in the Senate that would have provided $5 billion to address 
these and other homeland security priorities in the Omnibus 
Appropriations bill which was defeated. By under funding homeland 
security, and promising billions of dollars in tax cuts instead, we 
have delayed the delivery of urgently needed dollars to the very 
agencies charged with protecting us from terrorist attacks. The 
administration's priorities are misplaced and need to be corrected.
  Finally, the Homeland Security Act authorizes funding for various 
homeland security grants, such as grants for first responders and 
grants for new science and technology equipment. People in Michigan and 
all our States are eager to gear up to fight terrorism, but it must be 
a Federal/State partnership. It is unacceptable for us to simply tell 
the States what they must do and then expect them to somehow find the 
money to take on new and vast responsibilities. One central office has 
to be designated as the place to find out about the Federal grants that 
will be awarded and administered by the Homeland Security Department 
and all of its many components. And in the interim, it would be helpful 
for the Department to provide numbers to call and people to contact who 
can give out this information. In a meeting in my office, Governor 
Ridge indicated that he agreed that an interim number would be helpful.
  I look forward to a quick confirmation of Governor Ridge. I also call 
on my colleagues to begin the work needed to remedy the remaining 
problems with the Homeland Security Act.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
nomination of Governor Ridge to become the first Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  I do so with the utmost confidence in the personal integrity and 
professional ability of Governor Ridge. We in America should honor and 
support public servants who take on challenges as difficult and 
daunting as this one. This will be one of the hardest, and, instantly, 
one of the most important jobs in Government. We are in the midst of a 
crisis. We are at war. Raising our guard is an urgent task, and it 
falls to this new Secretary and those under his command to close our 
many vulnerabilities as quickly and effectively as possible. I believe 
that Governor Ridge, from his experience in the Congress, as Governor 
of Pennsylvania, and of course over the last year as the director of 
the White House Office of Homeland Security, is very well prepared for 
the job. I am confident that this Department, which I have worked hard 
for over a year now to try to bring into being, will be in good hands.
  But at the same time, I must express my deep doubts as to whether the 
administration in which Governor Ridge serves has done enough to make 
the Nation safer, and as to whether going forward it has the strong 
vision and strategy, as well as the necessary fiscal commitment, to 
improving America's security.
  Based on its design, the establishment of a Department of Homeland 
Security ought to be a great leap forward in our homeland defenses. We 
will at long last consolidate more than two dozen agencies and offices 
and organize them in a logical, accountable, and strong chain of 
command. And at the top of the agency, we will have a single cabinet 
secretary with budget authority who will be held accountable to the 
Congress and to the people.
  But getting there from here is no small task. It is both a tremendous 
opportunity and a sobering responsibility. Creating this Department 
will be the largest and most complex Federal Government reorganization 
since the 1940s, and demands a strong partnership between Congress and 
the executive branch.
  Let me say for my part, as one who fought for the new Department for 
more than a year, in the Governmental Affairs Committee and on the 
Senate floor, that I plan to do everything I can to ensure that the 
Department has the resources and the support it demands and deserves, 
because this is the most urgent responsibility our government has 
today. We must strive to do this together, across party lines. For 
generations, we in the Congress have managed to elevate support for our 
armed services above partisan politics, and we must do the same for 
homeland security. At the same time, we must work together to oversee 
the organization, the long-term strategy, and the day-to-day operations 
of the Department. That is our obligation to the American people. But I 
have never been under the illusion that reorganization itself would, by 
itself, be the solution to our homeland security challenges. It was 
only always the necessary first step. Having the right structure is no 
guarantee of success. We also need the right people, policies, 
programs, and resources.
  And in this area, the administration's homeland security efforts over 
the past year and three months have left much to be desired and much to 
be done. After many months of raising our guard, America is not nearly 
safe enough. It is no exaggeration to say that the holes in our 
defenses are not getting demonstrably smaller. According to almost 
every independent assessment produced in the past few months, America 
remains dangerously vulnerable to terrorist attack. The most persuasive 
of these, in my view, was produced by Former Senators Hart and Rudman, 
the men who, long before we were attacked, were calling for our 
government to reshape itself to better guard against the threat of 
terrorism.
  Last year, Senators Hart and Rudman headed a second task force 
intended to assess the progress made since September 11 and recommend 
urgent reforms. That task force released its report last October. I 
quote from its

[[Page 1562]]

introduction: ``America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and 
respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil. In all 
likelihood, the next attack will result in even greater casualties and 
widespread disruption to American lives and the economy.'' In our 
committee hearing last week, Governor Ridge indicated that he 
fundamentally understands the amount of work we have left to do. I 
appreciate that. He and I disagree about how much has been accomplished 
over the past year, but I am grateful we share the same understanding 
of the size and scope of the challenge that remains.
  Let me repeat some of the hard facts about our remaining 
vulnerabilities: Our local and State law enforcement officials are 
operating in a virtual intelligence vacuum with no access to the 
terrorist watch lists that the State Department provides to our 
immigration and consular officials. In the words of the Hart-Rudman 
report, this means that, when it comes to combating terrorism, ``the 
police officers on the beat are effectively operating deaf, dumb, and 
blind.'' That's unacceptable, and in my view, the administration has 
taken very small steps at best to fix this problem; containers, ships, 
trucks and trains entering the United States over our borders and 
through our ports are subject to hardly any examination. Of the 21,000 
shipping containers that come through our ports every day, no more than 
2 percent, that's about 400, are inspected. The administration has 
begun to address this problem, trying to balance the competing demands 
of security and commerce, but we remain dangerously at risk; our first 
responders are unprepared for potential chemical or biological attacks. 
They lack the necessary training, and their communications systems are 
in most cases incompatible with one another. Again, I know the 
administration has talked about fixing this problem, but solutions have 
yet to materialize; we must make better use of our National Guard's 
effectiveness and expertise here at home. I have put forward proposals 
suggesting how our country can do that but again, I have heard few 
ideas or directives from the White House on this front. We lack 
effective vaccines and medicines to counter the vast majority of 
biological and chemical weapons. I have put forward comprehensive 
legislation to spur the private sector development of these 
countermeasures. Our attempts to engage the administration in a 
conversation on meeting this urgent need have fallen on deaf ears.
  I believe it is unnerving and unacceptable that we have not come 
further faster. Bureaucratic inertia is a powerful force. That's why 
the Homeland Security Act which we passed and the President signed 
needs to be implemented boldly and aggressively.
  Governor Ridge seems to understand this, upon being appointed the 
President's Homeland Security Advisor, said that, ``The only turf we 
should be worried about protecting is the turf we stand on.'' And while 
he has tried his best to honor that statement, I am not yet convinced 
that the administration as a whole is prepared to live up to that 
rhetoric. Let me give you one crucial example of an area in which a 
generally reactive rather than proactive mindset is already producing 
serious problems: intelligence collection, dissemination, and analysis.
  We now know that the failure of our intelligence agencies to connect 
the dots on September 11 was the single greatest error among many 
glaring failures. Nevertheless, the Bush administration has thus far 
failed to challenge or change the status quo of the intelligence 
community to fix what is broken.
  On paper, the passage of the new Homeland Security Act has ushered in 
a new era. The bill creates a single all-source information analysis 
and infrastructure protection unit within the new Department. We had a 
lot of discussion and debate over the roles and responsibilities of 
this new unit, would it be focused only on protecting critical 
infrastructure, or would it be designed to help do what we didn't do 
before 9/11, namely ``connect the dots'' to prevent attacks before they 
occur. In the end we compromised: it would do both. But I am very 
disturbed by indications that the administration believes the primary 
responsibility of the new Department's intelligence unit is to protect 
critical infrastructure, and that performing analysis to prevent 
attacks is peripheral or secondary at best.
  The fact is, we can imagine horrific terrorist attacks that are not 
against critical infrastructure but against people, a bomb in a 
shopping mall or a biological agent dropped from overhead onto city 
streets. It makes no sense for the Department of Homeland Security's 
intelligence division to put on critical infrastructure blinders rather 
than assessing and processing all information related to terrorist 
attacks against Americans here at home.
  This is an absolutely central question, not in any way a semantic 
distinction. The question here is whether the new Department will 
systematically work to prevent all terrorism, or whether it will have 
the much narrower mission of protecting critical infrastructure.
  During the long debate over the legislation creating a Department of 
Homeland Security, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held 
hearings focused specifically on the intelligence mission and 
information needs of the new Department. We analyzed the 
Administration's original legislation and determined that the 
information analysis and infrastructure protection directorate it 
proposed was too narrowly focused and would not have the access to 
information it needed to ``connect the dots'', and therefore prevent 
future terrorist attacks. We proposed separate directorates for 
intelligence and for critical infrastructure which would be headed by 
separate, Senate confirmed Under Secretaries. This was to make it clear 
that the intelligence function in the Department would be focused on 
its full range of missions, preventing attacks, improving border 
security, better informing our emergency response activities, and, yes, 
protecting critical infrastructure.
  The administration resisted this approach, and insisted that the 
directorate be headed by a single Under Secretary. However, they agreed 
that separate Assistant Secretaries, one for information analysis and 
another for infrastructure protection, would head up two distinct 
entities in the directorate. And it was clear that the Directorate 
would be focused on detecting and preventing attacks, as well as 
protecting critical infrastructure.
  As a result the language in the Homeland Security Act reflects a 
compromise. It makes clear that the mission of the Information Analysis 
and Infrastructure Protection Directorate includes detecting and 
preventing all terrorist threats against our country, not just those 
against critical infrastructure.
  Regrettably, long after our deliberations finished, long after the 
bill was signed, the Administration has apparently now decided that no 
compromise was reached, that the position in the President's original 
proposal was adopted by the Congress. Let me make clear: that is a 
false interpretation, and it is one which, if unchallenged, will mean 
that the Department of Homeland Security will, from the beginning, have 
abdicated one of its most vital functions, that is preventing acts of 
terrorism against the American people.
  The legislative history is clear, yet the administration is 
apparently intent on creating an intelligence unit narrowly focused on 
protecting only critical infrastructure, rather than preventing any and 
all acts of terrorism against the American people on our home soil. 
This is not what we agreed to, and it is not what America needs. I will 
continue to insist that the administration fulfills the intent of the 
legislation we passed.
  Finally, let me say a few words about the critical problem of 
insufficient funding, which has so far hamstrung and hobbled our 
efforts to better protect America. We have dozens of Federal agencies, 
including many that are being consolidated into the new Department of 
Homeland Security--that are in the midst of urgent work post-September 
11. The Coast Guard, Border Patrol and others need to train their

[[Page 1563]]

employees and invest in new technology. They need to pay bills for 
expensive investments they have already made. But this administration 
isn't providing them with the necessary funding . . . and some in 
Congress are not rising to the challenge either.
  Indeed, just last week on the Senate floor, the Republican leadership 
rejected a $5 billion package of investments in homeland security 
programs.
  The problem is especially pressing at the local level. Local and 
State first responders, who are also our first preventers of terrorism, 
are not getting the support they need, despite promise after promise 
from the administration. Late last year, the President inexplicably 
blocked $2.5 billion in emergency spending that could have gone to 
federal agencies and state and local officials for their homeland 
security efforts. That was wrong.
  This war on terrorism cannot be won with wishful thinking. It will 
take strong leadership and a lot of money. It will take real, not 
rhetorical, partnership among every layer and level of government. It 
will take talent, training, and technology. And it will take tireless 
effort on the part of thousands of Federal employees.
  All this will soon fall on Governor Ridge's broad shoulders. I do not 
doubt his talent or his commitment to the job. I have confidence in his 
competence. But unless and until this administration strengthens its 
strategy, corrects its long-term vision, and puts its money where its 
mouth is, and does all these things urgently, the hard work of a good 
man, and of the thousands of men and women in his charge, will not be 
enough to make America as safe as we must be.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate considers President Bush's 
nomination of Director Tom Ridge to be the first Secretary of the new 
Department of Homeland Security. The real question, however, is not 
whether the Senate will support the new Department or Director Ridge. I 
have no doubt that we will. Indeed, the proposal for establishing this 
Department was born in the Senate, and both that proposal and Director 
Ridge have enjoyed widespread bipartisan support even during the many 
months that President Bush was threatening to veto any new cabinet 
level Department of Homeland Security.
  Rather, the real question today is whether the President will 
continue to support the new Department with more than words, or whether 
having used the Senate proposal for political purposes in the last 
election, he will now simply disengage or move on to other matters.
  The initial signs are not good. Even as we debate the confirmation of 
Director Ridge, the administration is trying to push through Congress a 
massive tax cut that will benefit most the wealthiest Americans at the 
same time as massive spending cuts in vital homeland security measures. 
These reductions include slashing grants to state and local first 
responders as well as cutting FBI agents and FBI computer upgrades. 
These are key homeland security measures.
  When we voted to establish the new Department of Homeland Security, I 
warned that it would not be enough to just shift agencies from one 
building to another or to rewrite some boxes on an organizational flow 
chart. While reorganization was a good first step, I warned that reform 
was what was needed, and it still is.
  Reform is a much more difficult task than reorganization. It takes 
persistence and hard work, and reform cannot be accomplished by one 
branch of government or one party working unilaterally. True and 
successful reform will require us to work together. It will require 
Republicans to work with Democrats in the Congress, and it will require 
the President and the new Secretary of Homeland Security to work with 
the Congress.
  Unfortunately, the track record of the administration in working in a 
bipartisan manner with the Congress on the homeland security is not a 
good one. When Director Ridge first assumed his current position, we in 
the Senate were anxious to hear from him how the Administration was 
working to protect the homeland. In fact, the Judiciary Committee was 
the first Committee to invite him to testify after the 9/11 attacks. 
Unfortunately, for months, the administration refused to allow Director 
Ridge to testify and tell Congress what he was doing. The President 
opposed establishing a new cabinet level department in part to avoid 
such Congressional oversight.
  That position changed only after congressional oversight highlighted 
the problems at our agencies charged with protecting our domestic 
security from international terrorists. I remember well the day when 
the President reversed his position and decided to support a new 
Department of Homeland Security. It was on the morning of June 6, 2002, 
when the Judiciary Committee was holding nationally televised hearings 
highlighting the testimony of FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley, who was 
selected as one of Time Magazine's ``People of the Year'' for 2002. 
Moments before we began our hearing, the White House announced that it 
would support a new department, but the President's proposal was long 
on rhetoric and short on details. Indeed, there was not even a written 
legislative proposal when the President went on television that night 
to talk about his welcome change of heart.
  Eventually, we got a very brief legislative proposal, but the 
administration candidly admitted that it was a work in progress. Along 
with that first draft came a promise from Director Ridge, who ran the 
Administration's legislative effort, that ``We will work together on 
this.'' Director Ridge repeated that promise when he testified before 
the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 26, 2002, stating that he was 
``anxious to work with the Chairman and other members of the committee 
to assure that the concerns that [I had] raised are properly 
addressed.'' He assured us that ``[t]his Administration is ready to 
work together with you in partnership to get the job done. This is our 
priority, and I believe it is yours as well.''
  That is precisely what we in the Senate tried to do. We negotiated in 
a bipartisan manner to work out our many differences on the bill. The 
work was not easy.
  For example, I worked with my friends Senator Levin, Senator 
Lieberman and Senator Bennett to reach a responsible compromise on the 
administration's proposal to gut the Freedom of Information Act with an 
overly broad exemption that would have given more protection to certain 
information handed over by private companies and businesses than we 
give to classified government information. We reached a bipartisan 
agreement that satisfied both sides and the White House agreed to the 
compromise language.
  I also worked with Senator Grassley to address the omission of 
whistleblower protections from the bill, and we crafted a bipartisan 
amendment to actually improve existing whistleblower protections as a 
homeland security measure. We also sought to include the bipartisan FBI 
Reform bill in the measure so that we could do more than simply move 
the deck chairs around in the homeland security measure. There were 
many examples of such bipartisan efforts to address real problems in 
our Nation's domestic security and improve on the administration's 
bill.
  Unfortunately, in the end, the administration did not keep the 
promise to ``work together'' on the homeland security bill. Instead, 
the final bill was written by a small group of Republicans, working in 
secret with the administration. The bill was quickly rammed through the 
House, which promptly adjourned so that no compromise or debate could 
occur between the two chambers. Our bipartisan FOIA agreement was 
jettisoned and the overly broad administration proposal was inserted. 
The administration's new FOIA-gutting law also for the first time makes 
it a crime for any Federal Government employee, including Members of 
Congress and their staffs, to leak or disclose any private business 
information that the business wants to keep secret. Is this an effort 
to crimp congressional oversight and control the flow of information to 
the American people? We will see how this administration wields this 
new power.

[[Page 1564]]

  The bipartisan FBI Reform Act was omitted from the administration's 
Homeland Security bill entirely. The bipartisan amendment strengthening 
whistleblower protections was also left out so that current 
whistleblower protection, with all of its flaws, simply applies to the 
new Department. These protections will mean nothing without vigorous 
enforcement of these laws by the administration. The leadership of the 
new Department and the Office of Special Counsel must work to encourage 
a culture that does not punish whistleblowers, and the Congress, 
including the Judiciary Committee, must continue to vigorously oversee 
the new and other administrative departments to make sure that this 
happens. I appreciate Director Ridge's comments at last Friday's 
hearing before the Governmental Affairs Committee when he stated, 
``there's specific language in the statute that reminds the secretary 
and reminds everyone associated with the new Department that there 
shall be no reprisals for legitimate whistleblower activity.''
  Gone too were other protections for the federal employees who have 
spent the last year and a half of their lives protecting our country 
against terrorist attack. Inserted, instead of these important security 
measures, were pet provisions benefitting Eli Lilly and Texas A&M, to 
name a few.
  And now we hear a familiar promise. ``Don't worry. We will work 
together to reform.'' We will work to ``clarify'' the protections for 
vital whistleblowers; work to ensure that the best federal workers 
don't leave the Department; work to make sure that the INS operates 
better and that the FBI reforms itself.
  I only hope that, once he is confirmed, Secretary Ridge will work 
with us in a bipartisan manner.
  Our best defense against terrorism is improved communication and 
coordination among local, State, and Federal authorities; and between 
the U.S. and its allies. Through these efforts, led by the Federal 
Government and with the active assistance of many others in other 
levels of government and in the private sector, we can enhance our 
prevention efforts, improve our response mechanisms, and at the same 
time ensure that funds allotted for protection against terrorism are 
being used most effectively. Indeed, Governor Ridge stated at the 
hearing before the Governmental Affairs Committee last Friday that 
``all 50 states and territories have appointed homeland security 
advisers that participate regularly in meetings at the White House and 
in bimonthly conference calls with the Office of Homeland Security.'' I 
appreciate that the local officials of Vermont will have a ``single 
entry point to address many of the homeland security concerns.''
  At the same time that the Department of Homeland Security works to 
protect the safety of Americans, it is essential that Secretary Ridge 
makes sure to protect the freedoms of Americans. Recent press reports 
have warned that the Department will turn into a ``supersnoop's dream'' 
because it will allow creation of a huge centralized grand database 
containing a dossier or profile of private transactions and 
communications that each American has had within the private sector and 
with the government. Indeed, in section 201, the bill authorizes a new 
Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection to 
collect and integrate information from government and private sector 
entities and to ``establish and utilize . . . data-mining and other 
advanced analytical tools.'' In addition, in section 307, the bill 
authorizes $500,000,000 next year to be spent by a new Homeland 
Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, HSARPA, to make grants to 
develop new surveillance and other technologies for use in detecting, 
preventing and responding to homeland security threats.
  We do not want the Federal Government to become the proverbial ``big 
brother'' while every local police and sheriff's office or foreign law 
enforcement agency to become ``little brothers.'' How much information 
should be collected, on what activities and on whom, and then shared 
under what circumstances, are all important questions that should be 
answered with clear guidelines understandable by all Americans and 
monitored by Congress, in its oversight role, and by court review to 
curb abuses.
  I appreciate Director Ridge's promise at last Friday's Governmental 
Affairs' Committee hearing that ``[a]ny new data-mining techniques or 
programs to enhance information sharing and collecting must and will 
respect the civil rights and civil liberties guaranteed to the American 
people under our Constitution.''
  The reorganization is done, but the hard work of reform lies ahead. 
The FBI, the INS, and other important government agencies must improve 
their performance, and they need the support of both the Congress and 
the Administration to do so. The new Department of Homeland Security 
cannot ``go it alone.'' The Congress now will have an imperative to 
monitor vigilantly and responsibly the implementation of the new 
Department. It is essential that Governor Ridge work with Congress as 
the Director of Homeland Security. Governor Ridge stated before the 
Governmental Affairs Committee last Friday that he is ``going to do 
[his] very, very best to respond to whatever requests [he] get[s] from 
Congress of the United States, because we need to not only build this 
Department together, but we need to sustain and make sure that we work 
together to make it as effective as possible.'' We will hold him to 
this promise.
  We must work together to effect reform. It is time to match the 
rhetoric and make that promise come true. I offer my assistance and 
wish Director Ridge all the best in his new job. Too much depends on it 
for Director Ridge to fail.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
nomination of Governor Tom Ridge as the first Secretary of the new 
Department of Homeland Security.
  Sixteen months after the terrorists turned airliners into missiles 
and leveled the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, the 
creation of a Department of Homeland Security and the speedy 
confirmation of Governor Ridge will contribute to the safety of our 
Nation.
  Today's confirmation comes after a long struggle over the granting of 
statutory authority for a Department of Homeland Security. I was an 
early proponent of statutory authority, recognizing that the additional 
powers of cabinet level authority were required for the individual 
tasked with our Nation's security.
  After Governor Ridge was appointed last year, Paul C. Light, Director 
of Governmental Studies at the Brookings Institution, and I wrote two 
op-ed pieces for the Washington Post that evaluated the performance of 
Governor Ridge as the director of the White House Office of Homeland 
Security. I will submit these for the Record.
  What we found was that Governor Ridge was not able to do his job 
without statutory authority. While he had access to the information and 
people needed to do his job, he lacked impact. Despite influence in the 
budget and personnel process, the Governor's authority over the 
operations and management of the homeland security establishment was 
weak. Even with a talented staff, his input in selecting other key 
administration personnel was unclear.
  Mr. President, that is why today I am voting in favor of Mr. Ridge's 
confirmation. While it is not a panacea to our Nation's security 
concerns, it is a step in the right direction. Giving Governor Ridge 
the authority to be in charge of the Department of Homeland Security 
will provide him with the ability to order the changes required in our 
newest security apparatus.
  Ultimately, the reorganization of 22 agencies and 170,000 Federal 
employees is going to take months, if not years, to accomplish. The 
reality is that Americans are still vulnerable to additional terrorist 
attacks and the Federal Government is not adequately preparing for that 
threat.
  Right now, we are relying heavily on the intelligence community and 
the FBI as the front line in our battle against terrorism. And I remain 
concerned about the FBI's lack of preparation and failure to answer 
some of the

[[Page 1565]]

most fundamental questions about suspected terrorists who sleep among 
us like how many operatives of terrorist groups are within our borders.
  The sooner we act to have an agency that can coordinate and provide a 
clear line of authority for our nation's security, the better equipped 
we will be to protect our nation.
  I ask unanimous consent the op-ed pieces to which I referred be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 24, 2002]

                        A New Job for Tom Ridge

                   (By Bob Graham and Paul C. Light)

       Last fall we set seven criteria for measuring Tom Ridge's 
     performance as President Bush's appointed director of 
     homeland security [``Tools for the Homeland Security Chief,'' 
     op-ed, Nov. 22]. Although we were skeptical about whether he 
     could do his job without statutory authority, members of 
     Congress decided to defer to the president, who said Ridge 
     should be given the benefit of the doubt to begin carrying 
     out his important mission.
       Over six months into his task, Ridge has had both success 
     and frustration. He clearly has access to the information 
     needed to do his job, which was our first criterion for 
     evaluating his office. But that information is still muddy, 
     its sources many, and its usefulness often mixed--as 
     evidenced by the color-coded system of vague threat warnings 
     his office developed. Ridge has also had access to key 
     decision-makers such as the president, vice president and 
     attorney general, which was our second criterion. What he 
     apparently has not had is success in making his case on the 
     need for sweeping reorganization of the nation's troubled 
     homeland security agencies.
       Unfortunately, no one knows for sure just what he believes 
     about the need for reorganization--as a White House staffer, 
     he has not been given permission to testify before Congress. 
     There are reports that he wants much more than mere tinkering 
     with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Border 
     Patrol, Customs Service and other agencies. If this is true, 
     he has not been successful in making his case. He may have 
     access, but what he truly needs is impact.
       Ridge has had his greatest success in the budget and 
     personnel process, our third criterion. Homeland security 
     agencies such as the INS and Coast Guard would receive more 
     money and personnel under the new Bush budget than they could 
     ever have expected during ordinary times. But as Ridge has 
     argued in making the case against his testifying before the 
     Senate Appropriations Committee, he has no power to spend, 
     obligate, or audit money. At the end of the day, agencies 
     must put their trust in the president's budget office for the 
     dollars and personnel they need. That reduces Ridge's clout 
     in ensuring that those dollars will be spent in a manner 
     consistent with the overall plan for homeland security.
       As for our fourth, fifth and sixth criteria--his staff, 
     executive office space, and role in selecting key 
     presidential appointees--Ridge has had mixed success. He is 
     still running a minimalist, though apparently talented, 
     operation, and he is still looking for office space within 
     shouting distance of his home in the Old Executive Office 
     Building. But it is not at all clear that he has had a role 
     in selecting key personnel such as the new nominees to be 
     surgeon general or director of the National Institutes of 
     Health--both essential players in the fight against 
     bioterrorism.
       Ridge does not have much say over the operations and 
     management of the homeland security establishment, which was 
     our seventh and final criterion. As the recent events at INS 
     suggest, homeland security depends on agencies' being 
     properly structured, staffed and led. The homeland security 
     workforce is willing and patriotic, but its organizational 
     infrastructure is weak. Yet Ridge can only stand on the 
     sidelines as the media reveal one weakness after another in 
     our security system. He can cajole, advise, influence, and 
     arm-twist, but he cannot order anyone to do anything for good 
     or ill.
       Ridge himself may have made the most persuasive case for a 
     stronger office of homeland security in a little-noticed 
     speech recently. Appearing before an association of state and 
     local emergency management officials, Ridge talked about the 
     need for more coordination, better technology and simple 
     accountability.
       ``As part of our consideration of the new 21st-century 
     border, we are presently considering a range of options that 
     goes from simply a new technology architecture that puts it 
     all on the same database to a series of consolidations that 
     could ultimately involve four or five departments,'' he told 
     the National Emergency Management Association. ``There is no 
     line of accountability. As you take a look at 21st-century 
     borders, you have got to have somebody in charge.''
       We believe it is time to nominate Tom Ridge for that job, 
     both literally and figuratively.
       The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee is ready to begin 
     moving a bill that will create a Cabinet-level Department of 
     Homeland Security, with its director to be confirmed by the 
     Senate. The need for that authority is clear as our war on 
     terrorism moves into the next phase.
       Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) is chairman of the Senate Select 
     Committee on Intelligence. Paul C. Light is vice president 
     and director of governmental studies at the Brookings 
     Institution.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 22, 2001]

                 Tools for the Homeland Security Chief

                   (By: Bob Graham and Paul C. Light)

       Former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge has been on the job 
     as homeland security director a little less than a month and 
     a half now, and it is important to respect the president's 
     wish that he be given time to settle in before Congress 
     begins to move legislation to strengthen the authority Bush 
     assigned him in his executive order.
       But it is also important to lay down some criteria for 
     evaluating his new office in the weeks and months ahead. 
     Americans need a yardstick against which to measure this 
     crucial job, while Congress can more responsibly assess 
     whether Ridge needs the additional powers that can be granted 
     only through permanent law.
       These criteria range from the seemingly mundane to the 
     broadest of goals, but we're convinced that all will prove 
     important as Ridge finds his way in political and official 
     Washington.
       1. Ridge needs to be first in line for information.
       It's hard to tell just who gets information at what point 
     on the homeland security front. What we do know is that Ridge 
     needs to get the first call from the front lines, not the 
     last. He also needs to have access to all paper moving in and 
     out of the Oval Office, including all briefing documents from 
     the National Security Council, if he is to have any chance of 
     influencing key decisions.
       2. He needs access to the principals.
       The Office of Homeland Security cannot succeed if Ridge 
     can't call meetings with Cabinet members and the heads of the 
     agencies he coordinates. He should meet with his counterparts 
     in the Cabinet, not their deputies.
       3. Ridge needs to be a gatekeeper in the budget and 
     personnel process.
       Two things matter in bureaucratic politics: money and 
     people. If Ridge is to have any hope of persuading agencies 
     to work together, he must be able to influence the budget 
     process and the allocation of new employees. Without access 
     to these levers, his sole power rests on the president's 
     willingness to intervene on his behalf, which in turn rests 
     on Ridge's readiness to play this trump card.
       Decisions are being made about the allocation of $20 
     billion in emergency spending that Congress has approved for 
     homeland security. And the Office of Management and Budget is 
     making the key marks on fiscal 2003 budgets, including 
     dollars for new employees. If someone from the Office of 
     Homeland Security is not involved in those meetings, Ridge 
     will have lost a critical lever to force needed cooperation.
       4. Ridge needs a permanent staff that owes its loyalty to 
     him, and him alone.
       Ridge has made some very good appointments to his team, 
     several of which were announced Tuesday. But many of the 
     members of his staff are still ``detailees'' from a variety 
     of federal agencies, including some from agencies he has been 
     asked to oversee in his effort to build a strong homeland 
     defense. No matter where they come from, Ridge should ask all 
     those on his team, including temporary employees, to fill out 
     the same financial disclosure forms that other White House 
     staff must complete. That is part of ensuring the legitimacy 
     of his effort.
       5. He needs a staff within shouting distance.
       Ridge has been given an office in the West Wing, close to 
     the Oval Office and his longtime friend the president. But 
     most of his staff will be housed miles from the White House 
     or even the Old Executive Office Building, which former vice 
     president Walter Mondale once described as like being in 
     Baltimore. Ridge's staff could end up being distant players, 
     both literally and figuratively.
       6. Ridge needs a say in the selection of appointees at the 
     agencies he oversees.
       As of this week there were still 35 vacancies among the 164 
     Senate-confirmed positions in agencies central to the war on 
     terrorism and homeland defense. Ridge should have a say in 
     choosing the 14 appointees yet to be named, including the 
     deputy director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
     the director of the National Institutes of Health and the 
     candidate for commissioner of the Food and Drug 
     Administration.
       7. Ridge needs to be involved in all management reviews of 
     the homeland defense establishment.
       Under the Government Performance and Results Act, every 
     federal agency is required to submit an annual performance 
     plan outlining its agenda for action. Ridge should be asked 
     to approve those plans, and should be given access to all 
     Office of Inspector General audits and investigations in any 
     of the agencies he coordinates. Ridge should be given a role 
     in helping rebuild the homeland

[[Page 1566]]

     security workforce and should be consulted on all legislation 
     regarding homeland security.
       These criteria go to the essential questions of Tom Ridge's 
     ability to get what he needs, and the government's ability to 
     give what he asks.
       On Oct. 8, the day he was sworn in, Ridge noted that he and 
     his office had been given ``an extraordinary mission,'' then 
     added: ``But we will carry it out.''
       We hope he is given the right tools to do so.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to offer my 
support for the confirmation of Governor Ridge as Secretary of Homeland 
Security. President Bush chose wisely when he nominated Tom Ridge to 
head this new department. Governor Ridge's adeptness in politics won 
him six terms as a United States Congressman and two terms as Governor 
of Pennsylvania. In both positions, he was praised for his intelligent 
leadership and attention to detail. His service in the military, in 
which he received a Bronze Star for Valor in Vietnam, only adds more 
credit to his name.
  While my colleagues can further attest to Mr. Ridge's 
accomplishments, I would like to focus my attention on the impact that 
Homeland Security has on my State, and I encourage Mr. Ridge to 
consider Alaska's security as a means of enhancing National Security.
  With nearly 50 percent of the total Coastline of the United States, 
Alaska has much to gain from the new Department of Homeland Security.
  Our coastal communities rely on a free-flow of air and maritime 
traffic to meet their daily needs. Any interruption in this traffic 
could imperil our isolated communities.
  Twenty percent of our Nation's domestic oil supply flows through the 
Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which spans some 800 miles from Prudhoe Bay in 
the north, to Valdez in the south. The Valdez terminal is the 
northernmost ice-free port in the United States. Its protection, 
therefore, is crucial to the safe and effective transport of Alaska 
Crude oil to the West Coast.
  Another port of importance to my State is the Port of Anchorage. 
Nearly 80 percent of all goods destined for Alaskan cities flow through 
the Anchorage Port. These communities, many with populations smaller 
than 100 people, rely on the Anchorage Port to remain open. Providing 
for the security of the Port of Anchorage is essential to the well-
being of the Alaskan people.
  In addition to commerce, most of the people in Alaska's coastal 
regions rely on the Fishing industry for jobs, generating nearly half a 
billion dollars for the State annually. With approximately 1,200 
groundfish vessels operating in Alaskan waters, harvesting nearly 2 
billion pounds of groundfish every year for U.S. and foreign consumers, 
Alaska's position as a fish leader is unquestionable. Fishing in 
Alaskan waters is an issue of security. The ability to maintain our own 
domestic food supply should be paramount to the new Department, and 
Alaska's role in its production is key.
  The safeguarding of these fishing vessels falls to the capable men 
and women of the U.S. Coast Guard, one of the new Department of 
Homeland Security's essential agencies. Although only 4 percent of the 
Coast Guard is stationed in Alaska, the Kodiak Coast Guard base is the 
largest single Coast Guard installation in the country. It is 
imperative, for maritime law enforcement, search and rescue, and oil 
spill response that the Coast Guard maintains its mission in Alaska.
  The focus of Homeland security is not limited to water, however, but 
encompasses all ports of entry. As an international hub, the Ted 
Stevens Anchorage International Airport is the busiest cargo airport in 
the country. Nine hours to most major destinations, the airport's 
location makes it an ideal crossroads for international trade, as well 
as for domestic travel and commerce. Airport security continues to be 
of great importance to this and other airports throughout Alaska.
  Likewise, Alaska is home to four military bases---two air force 
bases, and two army bases--and new missile defense facilities. 
Protecting our military assets for national defense and future military 
engagements will require comprehensive planning with Governor Ridge and 
the new Department of Homeland Security.
  I look forward to working with the new Secretary to provide for the 
security of this great Nation as well as for the State of Alaska.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, as a proud Pennsylvanian, I want to 
express my strong support for Governor Tom Ridge and to applaud the 
President for his nomination as the first Secretary for the Department 
of Homeland Security. Unfortunately, scheduling prevented me from 
introducing Governor Ridge during the nomination hearing in the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee. I would like to commend the Committee 
for its expedited consideration of this important nomination in order 
to facilitate the establishment of this critical new agency and the 
Senate for the quick consideration of his nomination today.
  Governor Ridge has served the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for many 
years and the Nation since shortly after the tragic attacks of 
September 11, 2001. This period of challenge has shown the greatness of 
our Nation in the immediate response of heroic Americans such as Todd 
Beamer and others who gave their lives flying over Pennsylvania in 
United Flight #93 and the many who have heeded the call to service and 
sacrifice since then. I would especially like to thank Governor Ridge 
today for heeding the President's call and agreeing to help in this new 
way to better prepare and protect our Nation from old and new threats 
in the midst of a changing world.
  Governor Ridge was born in Munhall, PA, just outside of Pittsburgh 
and grew up in Erie in northwestern Pennsylvania. He graduated from 
Harvard University and then attended my alma mater, Dickinson School of 
Law. He served in Vietnam as a staff sergeant in the U.S. Army and was 
awarded the Bronze Star for Valor. He practiced law in Erie after 
completing his law degree and then served as assistant district 
attorney. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982 
where he served 6 terms. He was then elected for two terms as Governor 
of Pennsylvania where he served from 1995-2001.
  Governor Ridge has prepared well for this responsibility in his 
service to Pennsylvania and his service to President Bush as the 
homeland security advisor. We are fortunate that Tom has agreed to 
serve the country in this new way. I also want to congratulate his 
wife, Michele, and their two children. I strongly support his 
nomination and look forward to supporting him in his new responsibility 
as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and encourage all 
of my colleagues to support his confirmation.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as we are all aware, the events of 
September 11 have changed how we perceive our country and our own 
safety. For over a half century, Americans have felt safe and secure 
being isolated by sheer distance from our enemies.
  As we have all found, we are no longer safe inside the borders of our 
own country. We feel vulnerable, and we are vulnerable.
  We must rethink how we do business and in doing so re-organize our 
Government to meet the challenges of the future. We did this with the 
passage of the Homeland Security bill. Now we must find strong 
leadership to help us manage this process.
  I believe Governor Tom Ridge is immensely qualified to be the first 
Secretary of the new Department of Homeland Security, and to begin the 
arduous tasks of securing our Nation against the threat of terrorism, 
not to mention the challenge of consolidating 22 agencies into a 
170,000-employee-strong Department--the largest Government re-
organization in 50 years.
  Tom Ridge selflessly left his own political career as Governor of the 
great State of Pennsylvania, where he was his own boss, to become the 
point man for President Bush on homeland security and now reporting to 
100 Senators.
  We in Congress should all make an effort to work with Mr. Ridge. It 
will be our job to give him the tools in order to do his job properly.

[[Page 1567]]

  I look forward to working with Secretary Ridge and his new 
organization. As the Chairman of the Energy Committee, I plan to work 
with the Department of Energy, particularly the National Nuclear 
Security Administration and our national labs to make sure they work 
closely with Homeland Security. Our labs were born from the Manhattan 
Project during World War II and it is once again time for them to step 
to the plate and help our country defend itself.
  As a Senator from a border State, I will work with Governor Ridge to 
make sure that he gets the tools needed to do the job he was chosen 
for. This will include: more funding for equipment at our land borders; 
additional funding for personnel; additional funding for training; and 
additional funding for industry/business partnership programs along the 
land border.
  It will be important for the border enforcement agencies of the new 
Department to work with the private sector on both sides of the border 
and reward those partners who adopt strong internal controls designed 
to defeat terrorist access to our country.
  It is also important that the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 
was transferred to the new Department. I will make sure that the 
transition of that Bureau from Treasury to Homeland Security goes 
smoothly. I know FLETC-Artesia, New Mexico will play a growing role in 
providing the training to the men and women who protect our country.
  I fully support the nomination of Governor Tom Ridge to be the first 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the nomination 
of Governor Tom Ridge as Secretary of the newly created Department of 
Homeland Security, DHS, when the Senate votes later this morning to 
confirm him.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee held its hearing on Governor Ridge 
on Friday and reported his nomination favorably later that afternoon. 
The expedited action on Governor Ridge is an illustration that when the 
administration seeks a consensus nominee from the start, the Senate can 
be very accommodating. I hope that administration officials will keep 
that in mind as they consider candidates for the Federal judiciary.
  Governor Ridge brings strong qualifications and experience to the 
job. He is literally battle-tested. He has served as President Bush's 
first and only Director of Homeland Security. He has management 
experience as the Governor of one of the Nation's larger States, 
Pennsylvania. Moreover, he has served in Congress and so knows the 
importance of the task we have, which is to provide adequate funding 
for this new department and oversee its operations.
  Having said that, his task is extraordinarily large and 
extraordinarily difficult. Governor Ridge will preside over the biggest 
Federal reorganization since the creation of the Department of Defense 
after the end of World War II.
  We feel compelled to create a Department of Homeland Security largely 
because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. There were attacks on our soil 
before 9/11, but 9/11 has focused our Nation's attention much as the 
attack on Pearl Harbor did for the World War II generation.
  We face a cunning and ruthless enemy determined to make our home 
front the front lines. We face an enemy that deliberately targets 
civilians, not soldiers. We face an enemy that wants to disrupt our 
society by every means possible.
  Keeping America safe will be an enormous challenge. Keeping America 
safe without trampling on the civil liberties that make us a free 
people will be an even bigger challenge.
  The Department of Homeland Security's purpose is to prevent terrorist 
attacks within the U.S. and respond to such attacks that do occur. The 
DHS will consist of 22 agencies now scattered throughout the Federal 
Government and will contain four major divisions:
  A division of information analysis and infrastructure protection, 
which will operate in concert with the Central Intelligence Agency 
(CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other 
intelligence agencies to assess threats;
  A division of science and technology that will develop and promote 
measures to defend against nuclear, chemical, or biological attacks;
  A division of emergency preparedness and response--built on the 
current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)--which will prepare 
for and respond to natural and man-made disasters; and
  A division for border and transportation security that will encompass 
what is now the Customs Service, the Transportation Security 
Administration, and the Border Patrol.

  Additionally, the new Department will include the Secret Service, the 
Coast Guard, and a new Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. 
The Immigration and Naturalization Service is to be abolished and 
nearly all of its employees are being moved to the new Department from 
the Justice Department. The bill would also move most of the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from the Treasury Department to the 
Justice Department and rename it the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms and Explosives. The new Department will also have an Office 
for State and Local Coordination charged with helping state and local 
governments to implement the national strategy for combating terrorism.
  So Governor Ridge must bring together 170,000 employees from 
disparate agencies and manage a budget that now totals $20 billion and 
is expected to reach $31 billion by 2007. That is an enormous task.
  We are operating on the premise that consolidating all of these 
agencies and programs under one roof is a good idea. That seems like a 
reasonable premise, but in all candor, we will have to wait and see.
  I am concerned about what will happen to the non-DHS functions of 
agencies moved to the new Department, such as those of the Coast Guard 
and FEMA. I want to make sure that the Coast Guard's traditional 
functions of maritime safety, search and rescue, aid to navigation, 
etc., will not be hurt by the reorganization.
  Port security operations accounted for 1-2 percent of Coast Guard 
activities before 9/11. By early October 2001, they increased to 56 
percent of all operations. The Coast Guard is trying to move towards a 
``new normalcy'' with port-security operations accounting for 20-25 
percent of all operations. According to the Congressional Research 
Service, prior to 9/11, the Coast Guard already was been underfunded 
with regard to its expanding responsibilities. Over the last 25 years 
there has been a substantial growth in mission areas such as counter-
drug operations, alien interception, pollution prevention, and 
fisheries enforcement. These functions will still need to be performed 
and have to be funded adequately.
  Similarly, FEMA's non-DHS functions of natural disaster response and 
relief should not be weakened.
  Another issue we will have to grapple with is oversight. Some of the 
oversight will rest with the Governmental Affairs Committee; some of it 
will be spread among several committees. That may be a good thing; but 
it could also prove to be unworkable. Again, we will have to wait and 
see. How we handle appropriations is another matter we will have to 
sort out.
  Another issue is the labor rights of the DHS employees. When 
President Bush sent his DHS proposal to Congress, it contained anti-
labor provisions that would have allowed him to strip civil service 
protections from Federal employees of the Department, so he could hire, 
fire and transfer employees as he wished.
  On the Senate floor, Senator Lieberman offered an amendment to 
maintain the current collective bargaining rights of more than 40,000 
Federal employees slated to move into the new Department. At the same 
time, in line with long-standing Presidential prerogative, the 
Lieberman amendment would have given the administration the ability to 
suspend these employees' collective bargaining rights if new job duties 
are related to intelligence, counterintelligence or terrorism 
investigations, and collective

[[Page 1568]]

bargaining would adversely impact national security.
  President Bush threatened to veto the bill if the Lieberman amendment 
passed and Republicans filibustered the amendment. President Bush 
demanded authority to strip all employees in the department of their 
civil service protections. Citing national security concerns, the 
President claimed that the labor provisions would not give him broad 
enough authority to hire, fire and change job assignments at the 
proposed agency.
  I think this course of action was regrettable. The Republicans did 
agree to a slight compromise on the labor issue: the department is 
required to consult on any workplace changes with employees' unions. In 
the end, though, the President will have wider-ranging authority to 
waive union rights than ever before. This is an issue we will have to 
revisit.
  We also need to be concerned about civil liberties. Of course, we 
need to be vigilant to protect the American people from those who would 
do us grave harm. But we can't sacrifice our freedom for security. 
Governor Ridge and the new department will have to balance the two. It 
won't be easy but it is absolutely necessary.
  Speaking more parochially, because of New Jersey's proximity to New 
York, we suffered enormously on 9/11: nearly 700 New Jerseyans lost 
their lives. But it is not just our proximity to New York that concerns 
me. We have plenty of critical infrastructure targets: ports, airports, 
tunnels, rail lines, chemical plants, etc. We have 8.5 million people 
and several large population centers. I want to make sure that we 
aren't short-changed when the DHS allocates resources to the States to 
bolster their security.
  I also want to make sure that Governor Ridge and the new department 
fulfill their responsibility to help keep guns out of the hands of 
terrorists. That means, to me, closing the ``gun show loophole''--
something President Bush pledged to do as a candidate in 2000. It is 
too easy for people to buy guns and other weapons at gun shows, no 
questions asked. We shouldn't make it easy for terrorists to buy 
assault weapons, .50-caliber guns, sniper rifles, etc.
  In summary, the creation of the DHS has not been without controversy. 
As I noted, there are questions about whether the consolidation of 
various agencies under one roof will be an effective way to prevent and 
respond to terrorist attacks; whether the civil liberties of U.S. 
citizens--particularly immigrants--will be adequately protected with 
regard to border security and intelligence gathering activities; 
whether state and local entities will receive adequate funding for 
their new DHS-related responsibilities; and whether non-DHS functions 
of agencies will be protected.
  Moving a bit farther afield, we need to consider where DHS fits in 
with regard to our overall priorities for fighting terrorism. The new 
department is responsible for preventing terrorism, but it will have 
nothing to do with addressing the root causes of that terrorism. Its 
very existence and the debate that will swirl around it could take 
attention and resources away from more proactive foreign policy and 
domestic law enforcement and social welfare efforts to reduce the 
impetus for terrorist acts, foreign and domestic.
  While the primary responsibility to make America safer without 
sacrificing our freedoms will rest with Governor Ridge and the new 
Homeland Security Department, in fact, all Americans share that somber 
responsibility. We will all have to work together, and we wish Governor 
Ridge well in this great undertaking.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Tom Ridge 
to be Secretary of Homeland Security. I think that Mr. Ridge is an 
excellent choice for the job.
  If confirmed, Mr. Ridge will oversee the new Department of Homeland 
Security, the consolidation of more than two dozen agencies and offices 
that have been reorganized into a single agency with an overriding 
mission: protecting the United States from terrorist attack and 
responding to an attack should one occur.
  Unlike his current position in the White House, Mr. Ridge will have 
budget authority and will be accountable to Congress and the people.
  I introduced legislation with Senator Bob Graham on September 21, 
2001, long before the Homeland Security Act was signed into law, to 
give him such authority. I believe that it is indispensable for him to 
do his job adequately.
  I applaud Mr. Ridge's willingness to accept the responsibility of 
leading the new Department. He will oversee and direct the largest 
Federal reorganization since the National Security Act of 1947.
  It is an enormous challenge. According to historians, James 
Forrestal, the first Secretary of Defense after passage of the 1947 
act, resigned after 2 years due to mental exhaustion caused by the 
difficulties of managing the new Department.
  Even with all of his energy and talent, Mr. Ridge will not be able to 
do it alone.
  We need to be sure that the Department of Homeland Security attracts 
and retains top people, people committed to ensuring homeland security. 
And we need to be sure that the department has the tools and resources 
it needs to protect us from and respond to terrorist attacks.
  It is hard to understate the importance of getting this new 
Department off the ground and running.
  Last November, I chaired a hearing of the Technology and Terrorism 
Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Hart-Rudman 
Terrorism Task Force Report. Members of this new 17-member Hart-Rudman 
Task Force included two former Senators, two former Secretaries of 
State, two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and two Nobel 
laureates.
  The task force report is chilling to read. And its conclusion is even 
more disturbing. It reads: ``A year after September 11, America remains 
dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic 
terrorist attack on U.S. soil. In all likelihood, the next attack will 
result in even greater casualties and widespread disruption to American 
lives and the economy.''
  Just a month before our hearing, CIA Director George Tenet testified 
before the Joint Intelligence Committee inquiry that ``al-Qaeda is in 
an execution phase and intends to strike us both here and overseas.'' 
He also said that the terrorist threat is as bad today as it was in the 
summer of 2001.
  The statements made by the Hart-Rudman Task Force as well as Director 
Tenet contrast with Mr. Ridge's recent testimony before the Senate 
Government Affairs Committee.
  There, Mr. Ridge testified that, ``America is undoubtedly safer and 
better prepared today than on September 10, 2001'' and that ``much has 
been accomplished'' to protect Americans from terrorism.
  My own view is that, while the terrorist threat remains extremely 
serious, I would disagree with those who argue that we have done 
nothing since September 11 to reduce our vulnerability to a major 
terrorist attack.
  In fact, since September 11, the 107th Congress has passed major 
anti-terrorism legislation in the areas of law enforcement, 
intelligence, aviation security, border security, and bioterrorism.
  However, what we have done so far is not enough. Much more remains to 
be done, particularly in the areas of intelligence, seaport security, 
and first responders, including the National Guard.
  That is why many of us in Congress have been trying to pass 
additional legislation to protect our country from terrorist attack.
  Let me give three examples of homeland security legislation that I 
plan to pursue in this Congress.
  First, we need to create the position of Director of National 
Intelligence, whose full-time job would be to oversee the Nation's 
intelligence community. Under the current structure, the intelligence 
community is fragmented, there is a lack of coordination between 
agencies, and there is no effective leadership.
  The concept behind the bill was endorsed by the House-Senate 
Intelligence Committee investigating the September 11 attacks.

[[Page 1569]]

  Second, as the Hart-Rudman Task Force recognized, we need 
comprehensive, immediate action to better secure our ports. Our 
seaports remain a huge gaping hole in our national security.
  Terrorism experts who have studied the issue believe that if 
terrorists try to bring weapons of mass destruction into this country, 
those weapons will almost certainly come in shipping containers. Only 1 
to 2 percent of the 21,000 shipping containers that enter the nation's 
361 ports each day are even inspected.
  I introduced legislation with Senators Kyl, Hutchison, and Snowe in 
the last Congress that would thoroughly address the issue of port 
security from the point cargo is loaded in a foreign country to its 
arrival on land in the U.S. We plan to pursue similar legislation in 
this Congress.
  Third, we should train and equip 2,700 National Guard units for 
emergency response.
  Modeled after legislation creating the successful National Guard 
counterdrug program, my proposed bill would permit each governor, with 
oversight and funding from the Secretary of Defense, to create a 
homeland security activities plan for his or her State.
  The National Governors Association, the National Guard , and the co-
chairs of the Senate National Guard Caucus all support the bill. The 
Hart-Rudman Task Force also endorsed the idea.
  One thing we should do right now is fully fund homeland security. 
Certainly, the last thing we should be doing is starving the new 
Department of resources to fight the war on terrorism.
  One reason I oppose the omnibus appropriations bill is that it cuts 
homeland security by $1 billion, money that has already been requested, 
authorized, and appropriated.
  Right now, the INS will lose $627 million for border security. First 
responders will lose $132 million. And other homeland security 
departments and agencies will also suffer.
  These cuts will make our Nation more vulnerable. They will also make 
Mr. Ridge's already tough job even harder.
  I hope that he will be a vigorous advocate for legislation to 
strengthen our country against terrorists and for adequate resources to 
pay for such protection.
  I congratulate Mr. Ridge on his nomination and look forward to 
working with him once he is confirmed.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I associate myself with the comments made 
by the distinguished assistant Democratic leader. We asked our 
colleagues to file amendments by the end of the day on Tuesday. They 
have. There is a significant number of both Republican and Democratic 
amendments. I am hopeful we can finish our work on this bill by 
tomorrow night. There is no reason, given the excellent debate we have 
had on a number of issues, that we should not try to finish. I hope we 
can get the cooperation of all Senators in seeking time agreements and 
in limiting the number of amendments yet to be offered. We have had a 
very good debate. There will be many other occasions throughout the 
year when we will have opportunities to express ourselves on a number 
of issues.
  I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle--as I say, there 
were a good number of amendments offered by both Republican and 
Democratic Senators--in order to accommodate that schedule.
  I come to the floor to express my support for Tom Ridge as the first 
Secretary of Homeland Security. Governor Ridge has created an 
impressive record in public service. As a Member of Congress, as 
Governor from the State of Pennsylvania, he has done a good job in 
meeting the challenges we all have faced as a country and we in 
particular face at the Federal level of Government in addressing the 
needs and concerns of our homeland--or as we sometimes say, hometown 
defense--over the course of the last year.
  There is one very consequential concern I have as we consider the 
creation of this Department and its leadership. That concern goes to 
resources. On several occasions over the course of the last several 
years, and even the last several months, we as a body, we as a Senate, 
have come to the conclusion we cannot fight the war on terror, we 
cannot do what we must do in creating a presence in the Persian Gulf, 
we cannot address the extraordinary challenges we face in Afghanistan, 
if we do not have the resources the Department of Defense needs to 
accommodate those missions.
  What did we do? We responded, as required, by providing the resources 
to the Department of Defense to ensure those missions could be 
fulfilled. I have every expectation we will be dealing with 
supplementals in the not too distant future, and I would be surprised 
if it was not the case that the Defense Department, once again, comes 
to the Congress to seek approval for additional appropriations for this 
fiscal year. We will look at those requests, but in most cases my guess 
would be we will support them. We will support them because we realize 
they cannot carry out a mission without resources.
  It is with that understanding that I am troubled this Department of 
Homeland Security has not had the same degree of support, does not have 
the same degree of commitment, has not had the resources that it must 
have to deal with the challenges and the mission that it faces and has 
faced from its very creation. Last year, the Congress passed 
overwhelmingly by a vote of 92-7 a supplemental appropriations bill to 
provide those resources. The President, for reasons that are not 
entirely clear to many of us, chose not to permit the $2.5 billion in 
that supplemental appropriations bill for homeland defense.
  Yet as I talk to Governors, as I talk to mayors, as I talk to local 
officials at every level of Government, they tell me the single biggest 
concern they have is their lack of confidence, their inability to deal 
with what they perceive to be a real vulnerability in protecting water 
supplies, energy facilities, roads, bridges, and ports. They are 
concerned about that vulnerability. One mayor called it homeland 
``insecurity.'' He said there was a homeland insecurity today in part 
because in spite of what we all profess to be our goal, there is a lack 
of willingness, a lack of commitment time and again on the part of the 
administration to provide the resources to meet that goal in dealing 
with the needs of the Defense Department and others as we consider our 
mission internationally.
  The President's budget we are now debating, this omnibus 
appropriations bill, unfortunately, reflects the same lack of attention 
and priority and concern for resources. In fact, cuts have been made 
that devastate our ability to deal with homeland defense, devastate our 
ability to deal with those areas for which there is absolute unanimity 
about priority. The budget that is currently pending would cut 1,175 
FBI agents, 1,600 Customs inspectors, and 450 food safety inspectors. 
The list goes on and on.
  You cannot have security without resources. You cannot deal with our 
extraordinary challenges in law enforcement without FBI agents. We 
cannot deal with the problems we have with immigration without Custom 
inspectors. We certainly cannot deal with the insecurity our country 
faces today without dealing with food safety in a more consequential 
way.
  We have a responsibility to ensure as this Department of Homeland 
Security becomes a reality, as we create the leadership, as we now 
confirm the first Secretary, we owe it to him, but far more importantly 
we owe it to the country to ensure that homeland insecurity is 
addressed, insecurity with regard to resources, insecurity with regard 
to our budget, insecurity in dealing with the extraordinary challenges 
we face in restoring confidence and building the kind of true homeland 
security we all want and need.
  We will have more opportunities to talk about this matter as 
Secretary Ridge comes before the Congress. We are off to an important 
beginning as he is confirmed today. I hope he will come back with a 
comprehensive plan that will enable him to convince not only us but the 
American people that he will have the resources and this will be the 
priority we all say it is.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 1570]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion about 
the funding for homeland security. I agree with my colleagues that this 
is an area that is going to require more resources. In particular, we 
want to make sure that the resources flow down to the State and local 
levels, that they are available to the first responders, those who are 
first on the scene in the event of a terrorist attack.
  I do want to point out, however, that H.J. Res. 2 contains 
significant new funding to strengthen our homeland security. For 
example, the omnibus bill provides over $5.3 billion for the 
Transportation Security Administration, which is a critical component 
in our efforts to secure our national transportation system and to 
ensure the freedom of movement of American people and commerce.
  This funding amounts to a $1.84 billion increase over last year, or a 
53-percent increase over fiscal 2002 figures. Of this funding, a 
minimum of $124 million will go toward buying explosive detection 
systems and trace detection systems; $250 million in funding will go 
toward the installation of airport detection systems. Many of us have 
noted the increased scrutiny of checked baggage in the recent weeks. 
One hundred million is for a very important purpose and that is for 
seaport security grants to port authorities.
  In another area, let's look at the first responders, which are of 
special concern to me. The omnibus bill includes more than $1.6 billion 
for emergency planning and assistance to help prepare our first 
responders. This amounts to an increase of over $997 million from the 
level provided in the fiscal year 2002 budget. Of this money, $900 
million is for the FIRE Grant Program, a very popular program in the 
State of Maine, that helps our firefighters equip themselves and 
prepare for future threats. In Maine, we found that the FIRE Grant 
Program is particularly useful to some of our small, rural communities, 
which simply would not have access to the resources needed to upgrade 
their equipment and their training.
  Mr. President, $114 million of the money for FIRE Grant Program 
funding is for interoperable communications equipment for firefighters 
and EMS personnel. September 11 taught us very dearly how important it 
is for our first responders to be able to communicate with one another, 
to have compatible equipment.
  Mr. President, $75 million is for urban search and rescue teams and 
another $75 million is for State and local emergency planning grants. 
We need to do so much more training and joint exercises at all levels 
of government to make sure we have a coordinated response to allow us 
to detect, prepare for, and, if necessary, respond to a terrorist 
attack more effectively.
  Let's look at the area of bioterrorism, one of the major threats we 
face today. We learned right here in the Senate the amount of damage 
that an anthrax attack can inflict. The omnibus bill provides 
considerable funding for bioterrorism. It includes money for the CDC, 
for example, for a smallpox vaccine, for an evaluation and research on 
the anthrax vaccine, and it includes money to make our hospitals better 
able to respond to a bioterrorism attack.
  I point out that the $3.7 billion for bioterrorism preparedness is 
exactly the same in this omnibus bill as in the Labor-HHS-Education 
bill authored under different leadership last July. The bioterrorism 
preparedness funding includes $940 million for upgrading State and 
local capacity. It includes $300 million for the National 
Pharmaceutical Stockpile. It includes $492 million for hospital 
preparedness. It includes $1.5 billion for bioterrorism-related 
research and construction at the National Institutes of Health.
  My point is that there is significant and much needed new funding 
included in this legislation. So we are making a genuine effort to 
provide the resources that are necessary to make our Nation more 
secure. It is not going to happen overnight. Money alone does not solve 
the problem, but money, clearly, is part of the solution, and we are 
making a major step forward in that regard through the funding provided 
by this bill, the billions of dollars in funding provided by this bill.
  Finally, let me touch on the Coast Guard, which is of special concern 
to me. The omnibus appropriations bill includes more than $6 billion 
for the Coast Guard. This amounts to an increase of more than $1 
billion from last year's enacted level. I stress this because it has 
been of great concern to me, Senator Stevens, and many other of my 
colleagues that we fully fund the Coast Guard so it does not jeopardize 
its traditional mission while it takes on increased responsibilities in 
the area of homeland security, particularly port security.
  So I think it should be evident from a review of this bill that we 
are making a significant commitment of additional funding for homeland 
security. This is a very positive step forward. More resources 
undoubtedly will be needed and will be considered as part of the 
President's budget.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from 
Utah, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for up to 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Maine. I sure 
appreciate the work that she has done on this issue. She deserves a lot 
of credit. This has been a big week for her with all of the things she 
has been able to accomplish.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of the confirmation of 
my colleague and friend, Tom Ridge, to serve as this Nation's first 
Secretary of Homeland Security.
  I commend my fellow Senators for moving this nomination with the 
speed that it deserves. Senators Collins and Lieberman have done an 
excellent job. I am very appreciative of that.
  With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and now the 
confirmation of Tom Ridge to head that agency, the President finally 
has a unified department specifically devoted to fighting terrorism.
  Tom Ridge will begin his tenure as Secretary with an enormous task: 
implementing the new Department that Congress has created just months 
ago.
  This is the most comprehensive reorganization that our Federal 
Government has undergone in over 50 years.
  Because I know Tom Ridge, I know that he is up to the task. I view 
his confirmation as critical to the success of the new Department's 
mission.
  After successfully implementing the reorganization of nearly 200,000 
Federal employees, Secretary Ridge's work will just have begun.
  As the first Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Tom 
Ridge will face the awesome challenges and responsibilities of 
safeguarding our borders and enhancing our Nation's ability to respond 
to future terrorist attacks. He must do so while ensuring that our 
cherished individual civil liberties are protected.
  He will be responsible for collecting intelligence from a number of 
different sources, fusing it into a single coherent picture, and then 
ensuring that it is acted upon appropriately.
  While all of us hope and pray that our Nation will not be attacked by 
terrorists again, we must remain ever vigilant to that real threat. The 
department's goals and efforts are of paramount importance to all our 
constituents, including those in my home state of Utah and, of course, 
the entire Nation.
  Tom Ridge is the right man for this challenge. He was a wonderful 
Governor of Pennsylvania. He certainly

[[Page 1571]]

has been a heroic figure throughout the lives of many people.
  Less than 1 month after the terrorist attacks on our country, 
Governor Ridge was sworn in as the Director of the White House Office 
of Homeland Security.
  He has worked there with an unwavering dedication to protect our 
homeland. I commend Governor Ridge on his efforts to improve our 
Nation's security and his dedication and courage in tackling these most 
difficult issues in these times of crisis.
  Tom has accomplished much.
  While there is much more to do to ensure the safety of our great 
Nation, I am comforted by his demonstrated track record of leadership 
and success.
  Tom Ridge and the President have been a steady beacon of hope for all 
Americans, and I want to thank them for all their accomplishments.
  By confirming Tom Ridge, we are taking a big step forward in helping 
to defend our Nation from terrorism.
  I am confident that Secretary Ridge will work vigorously to secure 
our Nation and protect Americans--and to protect all of us in ways that 
really have to be undertaken.
  I am proud to support Secretary Ridge's nomination and look forward 
to working with him on homeland defense and security issues in the 
future.
  I look forward to working with my colleague from Maine and others on 
the other side in the future on these very important issues.
  This agency is so big that it crosses over a whole raft of 
communities.
  I again want to pay tribute to the distinguished chairman of the 
committee and her ranking member for having done such a good job in 
bringing this nomination forward at this particular time.
  I reserve the remainder of my time for the chairman. I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senate is now about to vote on the 
nomination of Gov. Tom Ridge to be the new Secretary of Homeland 
Security. I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on this nomination. 
He is truly an outstanding individual to head this important new 
Department.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Thomas J. Ridge of Pennsylvania to be Secretary of Homeland 
Security?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from South 
Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 13 Ex.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________