|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE The leading Copyright |
[Congressional Record: November 19, 2002 (Senate)]
[Page S11456-S11506]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr19no02pt2-7]
[[pp. S11456-S11506]] S E N A T E
[[Continued from page S11455]]
[[Page S11455]]
And pursuing America's homeland security imperatives is not only
critically important for future generations of Americans; let us also
realize that, as we adopt and create this new Department, we set a
powerful example for the nations of the world. Terrorists threaten
innocent lives everywhere. When we demonstrate that we are willing and
able to earn both security and more freedom, we will show free nations
that they can preserve their way of life without living in fear of
terror. And, equally important, we will demonstrate to those nations
remaining in the world whose people are not free that they can embrace
freedom and tolerance and democracy without compromising their safety.
There are few more important signals we can send by our example to
the nations of the world.
In 1919, Henry Cabot Lodge said famously: ``If the United States
fails, the best hopes of mankind fail with it.''
I add today, when the United States succeeds, the best hopes of
mankind succeed with it. When we succeed in protecting our homeland
security and preserving our freedom, we will show the way to nations
throughout the world.
This evening we say to the people of America: have confidence, your
government is organizing itself to protect your security. We need not
accept another September 11 type terrorist attack as inevitable. It is
not.
We are the strongest nation in the world. If we marshal our strength
as this new Department can, no future terrorist attack such as
September 11 will ever occur again.
Finally, I give credit and thanks to the Members of the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee, and to the majority staff for their
passion, precision, and persistence. They were tireless, working day
and night, through recesses, weekends, and holidays, and they have
every right to be proud of this product of their labor: a new
Department that will better protect the American people for
generations. The names of the staff members, from both the Committee
and from my personal staff, are:
Holly Idelson, Mike Alexander, Larry Novey, Susan Propper, Kevin
Landy, Josh Greenman, Bill Bonvillian, Michelle McMurry, Kiersten Todt
Coon, Joyce Rechtschaffen, Laurie Rubenstein, Leslie Phillips, Fred
Downey, Adrian Erckenbrack, Yul Kwon, Thomas Holloman, Donny Williams,
Janet Burrell, Darla Cassell, Wendy Wang, Megan Finlayson, and Adam
Sedgewick.
I thank them all for their commitment.
I would also like to thank the numerous staff for other members who
have been so helpful throughout the process. On the Governmental
Affairs Committee, so many staff played an important role in this bill.
On Senator Durbin's Staff, Marianne Upton and Sue Hardesty. On Senator
Akaka's staff, Rick Kessler, Nanci Langley, Sherri Stephan and Jennifer
Tyree. On Senator Levin's staff, Laura Stuber. On Senator Cleland's
staff, Donni Turner. On Senator Carnahan's staff, Sandy Fried. On
Senator Carper's staff, John Kilvington. On Senator Dayton's staff, Bob
Hall. Senator Daschle's staff also has contributed greatly to the
enactment of this legislation; I'd like to thank in particular Andrea
LaRue.
From the Office of Legislative Counsel, I'd like to thank Tony Coe
and Matthew McGhie for their assistance and guidance.
I thank Senator Thompson, who is leaving the Senate soon--tonight,
presumably--for the pleasure of his company on this journey, and the
contributions he made to the historical accomplishment this legislation
represents.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from West Virginia
has 60 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Kansas, Mr.
Brownback, wishes some time.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, yes, I
would like 5 minutes, if that is possible, to speak on the homeland
security bill.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator gets his time from whom?
Mr. BROWNBACK. From Senator Thompson. I believe he has some time
remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee has 7 minutes
remaining.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I seek 5 of those 7 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I promised to yield 5 minutes of my time to Mr. Jeffords,
after which I would yield for whatever time the Senator from Kansas
desires, after which, then, I will speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Mark Twain once said. ``Always do
right--this will gratify some people and astonish the rest.'' I rise
today to explain why I believe voting against this bill is the right
thing to do.
Of the may reasons to vote against the bill, I will focus on three--
the bill's treatment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the
bill's treatment of the Freedom of Information Act, and the process
used to create this new Department.
With the passage of this Homeland Security legislation, we will
destroy the Federal Emergency Management Agency, losing years of
progress toward a well-coordinated Federal response to disasters.
As it now exists, FEMA is a lean, flexible agency receiving
bipartisan praise as one of the most effective agencies in government.
But it hasn't always been that way.
Throughout the 1980s, FEMA's focus on Cold War civil defense
preparedness left the Agency ill-prepared to respond to natural
disasters.
The Congressional chorus of critics decried the Agency's misguided
focus and reached a crescendo after bungled responses to Hurricane Hugo
in 1989 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992.
One of FEMA's leading Congressional critics, then-Representative Tom
Ridge said in 1988, ``I was convinced that somewhere along the way, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency had lost its sense of mission.''
Over the last decade, refocusing the agency's mission and priorities
on natural disasters has left the agency well-equipped to respond to
all types of disasters. FEMA's stellar response to September 11th
provided this.
I cannot understand why, after years of frustration and failure, we
would jeopardize the Federal government's effective response to natural
disasters by dissolving FEMA into this monolithic Homeland Security
Department.
I fear that FEMA will no longer be able to adequately respond to
hurricanes, fires, floods, and earthquakes, begging the question, who
will?
Also of great concern to me are the new Freedom of Information Act
exemptions contained in the latest substitute.
Unfortunately, the current Homeland Security proposal chokes the
public's access to information under the Freedom of Information Act. I
ask, are we headed toward an Orwellian society with an all-knowing,
secretive big brother reigning over an unknowing public?
The bill defines information so broadly that almost anything
disclosed by a company to the Department of Homeland Security could be
considered secret and kept from the public. Although I believe the
current law contains an adequate national security exemption, in the
spirit of compromise I supported the carefully crafted bipartisan
Senate language contained in both the Lieberman substitute and the
Gramm-Miller substitute. The current bill ignores this compromise.
The process by which we received this substitute seems eerily similar
to the way the White House sprung its original proposal on Congress
some time ago. Late last week we received a bill that had magically
grown from 35 pages to an unwieldy 484 pages. There was no compromise
in arriving at the current substitute, only a mandate to pass the
substitute or be branded as weak on homeland security or, worse yet,
unpatriotic.
Still more troubling, the current bill places little emphasis on
correcting what went wrong on September 11, or addressing future
threats. Correcting intelligence failures should be our prime concern.
Instead, this bill recklessly reshuffles the bureaucratic deck.
Furthermore, as my colleague Senator Corzine stated earlier this
week, this bill does not address other vitally important issues such as
security at facilities that store or use dangerous chemicals. Without
provisions to address yet another gaping hole in our
[[Page S11456]]
Nation's security, why are we now being more deliberate in our
approach?
In closing, I feel it is irresponsible to divert precious limited
resources from our fight against terrorism to create a dysfunctional
new bureaucracy that will only serve to give the American people a
false--false sense of security. I will vote against this bill because
it does nothing to address the massive intelligence failure that led up
to the September 11 attacks, it dismantles the highly effectively
Federal Emergency Management Agency, and creates dangerous new
exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act that threaten the
fundamental democratic principle of a well-informed citizenry.
I am sorry for having to take this position, but I believe so deeply
in what I have said that I must do it.
I am pleased to have been able to express myself, and I thank the
Senator from West Virginia, my faithful friend.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator from West Virginia allow me to direct a
statement, through the Chair, to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has the floor.
Mr. REID. I am sorry, the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I want to say, because the opportunity may not be right at
a subsequent time, how much I appreciate the days the Senator from West
Virginia has spent on the floor on this issue. Because of my having
responsibility to help move legislation along here, sometimes I was
concerned it was taking so much time. But in hindsight, this
legislation we are going to soon pass--it will pass sometime tonight--
is better legislation. And while it may not be--484 pages may not be
better, the knowledge of the American people of this legislation is so
much better than if we had passed this as people wanted on September
11.
So I want to commend and applaud the Senator from West Virginia for
educating the Senate and the American public about what is in this bill
and what is not in this bill. As I said, this legislation will pass.
But as a result of what the Senator has done over these many months
about this legislation, everyone is going to be looking at what is
taking place in this new agency that would not have taken place but for
the persistence of the Senator from West Virginia. The American public
owe you a tremendous debt of gratitude for your knowledge about
legislation and, most of all, for understanding what the Constitution
is all about and the role, in that Constitution, of the legislative
branch of Government.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may just respond: First of all, I thank
the distinguished Senator, who is the majority whip in this body. I
deeply appreciate what he has said. I appreciate very much what he has
said.
May I say, in turn, that the American people don't owe me anything.
But I will say this, that the American people are listening. And with
respect to the resolution dealing with a war with Iraq, the American
people were listening. The American people heard what we said. As a
result of speeches--I made two or three speeches in that instance--as a
result of those two or three speeches that I made, my office received
21,000 telephone calls, and my office received over 50,000 e-mails.
That is an indication that there is somebody out there listening,
somebody cares, somebody is paying attention. That is gratifying to me.
So somebody heard. And I don't pay all that much attention to the
polls. I don't think they ask the right questions. What are the right
questions? I don't know what the right questions are. But those polls
reflect responses to questions. And whether they are the right
questions or the questions that ought to be asked, I cannot say.
But I can say the American people do listen. And somebody has to
fulfill the duty Woodrow Wilson was speaking about when he said the
informing function of the legislative branch is as important, if not
more so, than the legislative function.
I thank the Senator. I am well paid.
When Plato was about to pass away from this earthly sphere, he said:
I thank the Gods that I was born a man.
He said:
I thank the Gods that I was born a Greek.
And he said:
I am grateful to the Gods for the fact that I live--I live
in the same era in which Sophocles lived.
So, I am thankful to God, and to my angel mother and my father, and
to the people of West Virginia, for the fact that I have had this great
privilege to work in this body, now, for 44 years and I have been able
to contribute. God gives me my faculties almost as they were 50 years
ago, except for my feet. I was always told the first place will be your
feet; your feet and legs will give way. I am finding that to be pretty
true. But I thank heaven that I was able to be here, to say what I have
been able to say about the resolution dealing with Iraq and the
homeland security legislation.
I think we have performed a service. I said what I thought. I am on
no man's payroll. I am on the people's payroll. And I wear no man's
collar but my own. That may be kind of a small collar.
But, anyhow, I do what I think. I could leave here any moment and get
just as big a check as I get as being a Senator because I have paid in
the system, now, 50 years this coming January 3.
I am doing what I want to do. I don't have to do this. I probably
ought to be home with my wife. We will be married, in another 6 months,
66 years, if the Good Lord lets me live.
But I do think the Senator from Nevada, has made a tremendous
contribution himself. He has listened to what we had to say, to what
Paul Sarbanes and I and the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr.
Jeffords, and others have said. We have warned about this measure. We
have not been in agreement with the administration in connection with
this homeland security agency. We think we have legislated too fast. We
think we have been in too big a hurry. We think we have paid too much
attention to the polls, and that we ought to have taken more time in
this body.
It is said to be the greatest deliberative body in the history of the
world. It hasn't been very deliberative in this case. But I am glad
that, although the intent was to pass this bill in a hurry--I was told
down at White House, I say to the distinguished Senator from Maryland,
Mr. Sarbanes--I went down there at the invitation of the President. I
am not invited very often down there. But on this occasion the
President invited me down. He said:
I have got to go to St. Louis. I can only be here a few
minutes. So we had a picture taken. All the cameras came in
and took pictures. Then he sat down and said: I have this package here.
I thank the congressional leaders for their input into this package.
I scratched my head. What input is he talking about? I knew the
congressional leaders had not had one ounce of input into it--not one.
This thing was patched together down in the bowels of the White House
by four eminent public servants--not quite perhaps up to the caliber of
Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Who else was on that committee
that wrote the Declaration of Independence? Robert Livingston. And who
else? There was John Adams, and one more: Roger Sherman. So they
weren't quite up to that caliber.
But this bill was the egg that was hatched down at the White House. I
can just picture them walking around there with their shadows on the
walls of the subterranean caverns, walking around with lanterns or
candles. And they hatched this great idea down there all of a sudden to
get ahead of this Mack truck that was coming down upon them fast in the
appropriations bills which provided that the Director of Homeland
Security would have to be confirmed by the Senate. The purpose of that
was, as Senator Stevens and I intended, Mr. Director, when the Senate
confirms you, you will come before the Senate Appropriations Committee.
So much for that.
The thing that is being missed probably most in this deliberation is
the fact that the Appropriations Committee and the Senate and the
Congress have appropriated moneys for homeland security that will make
the country far more safe than will this piece of legislation. It is
going to take a year or 2 years for this legislation to be implemented
and to get this thing going. In the meantime, the people who are now
out there on the borders, who are protecting the nuclear facilities of
[[Page S11457]]
the country, the food lines, and the clean water are the same people
who will be here a year or two from now when this agency is supposed to
be full blown.
But the President has a year in which to send up his plan as to how
this organization is to be implemented. Imagine that--a year. He has a
year. In the meantime, I am afraid that the people who are out there
now at midday and midnight working to secure the safety of the American
people will be distracted. They are going to be worrying about where
their offices are going to be; What is going to be the label over my
office? Where will my typewriter be? Where is the telephone going to
be? What is going to be the vision and the objective of this new
agency?
These people are going to be distracted. I am afraid that is what
gives the terrorist a good opportunity to work havoc in some way.
I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada for his kind words. I
also thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont who summed up in a
few words, in 5 minutes, what I could say in 30 minutes, the very good
reasons that we should oppose this bill. I admire him for that. I
admire him for his courage, his pluck, and for his good sense. He has
made my speech for me. I can just sit down. I thank the Senator from
Vermont.
I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas for his unlimited
patience and for his consideration and always for his good humor.
I yield while he speaks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia for allowing me to take time previously
allocated on the floor to speak.
I want to make a couple of comments about homeland security, and in
particular about the INS.
I have been privileged to serve for the last couple of years as
ranking member on the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary
Committee. Immigration is a subject on which we have focused.
We passed two major pieces of legislation already in this Congress
dealing with immigration issues--trying to strengthen our borders and
trying to give the enforcement agencies some better information, and
also better information for the INS and the State Department about
terrorists abroad before they get here. There are two good pieces of
legislation that we passed.
What we are attempting to do in this bill is to restructure the INS.
The reason I want to talk about the INS is that it is a troubled
agency, by anybody's definition--whether you are pro-immigration or
anti-immigration. I hear everybody complaining about the INS. It just
does not function well from any perspective that you look at. It may be
an impossible task. Some people may look at it as just impossible. We
have too many people seeking entry into the country each year. The
number varies. There are over 250 million entries into the country each
year by people who are legally seeking entry into the country. And 1
person may come in and out 10 times. That is 10 entries. But still, you
are talking about a large number of entries by people, who are not U.S.
citizens, into this country each year, making this a difficult job. It
is a troubled agency. It is not functioning well. We need to change it.
A lot of that is put in the bill.
I am pleased about some of the ideas that I and several others put
forward that are incorporated into the INS restructuring that is in the
homeland security bill. There is a clear distinction between the
enforcement and services functions at the INS. We recognize the
importance of keeping immigration enforcement and services in the same
department. Some people wanted to split them. I think that would work
poorly. I think you need to have the same functions together. They are
there. There are clear distinctions between the enforcement and
services functions, which clearly need to be delineated, but they need
to work together. Those are two positive features of this
reorganization.
I must be frank as well. I think there is some failing that we want
corrected in the INS restructuring portion of this homeland security
bill. I am concerned that the new Department be true and coordinated
well--both in the enforcement and services functions. It looks to me as
if some of the restructuring may not have good lines of clear
distinction in organization and functioning in the enforcement services
functions the way it is set up.
I am concerned about the services component of the Department of
Homeland Security being effectively coordinated with the enforcement. I
am troubled about how this is set up. I have communicated those
concerns to Governor Ridge, and I am hopeful that those concerns are
going to be taken seriously.
I think we need strong leadership at the head of the immigration
services office. It has to be a strong leader. That is a function of
who is picked--not a function of how it is structured. But if we weaken
that services component of it, and if we don't have somebody who has
knowledge, stature, and ability to communicate this going forward, I
think we are going to be left with a continuing troubled agency.
I think the leadership has to have the ear of the Secretary of the
new Department. Part of my concern is this is built to the side--not
built into the positive agency--to the side of the Secretary. If you do
not have a strong voice there, if they do not have the ear of the
Secretary, I think we are going to have some real problems in this
immigration portion.
We want strong and effective immigration enforcement. We don't want
the invaluable services of citizenship, family, and business petitions,
asylum, and the many public service components of immigration to be
forgotten. We don't want that. We want a strong enforcement, and we
want to provide homeland security. But we also are a nation of
immigrants. We need to take people who are legally here and build this
society.
We want strong security. We should never compromise our values or
lose sight of the immigration benefits to our culture or to our
economy. It is critical that we monitor the development of this new
Department to ensure the immigration services component receive the
attention and resources it deserves.
I have shared these concerns with Governor Ridge. I am comforted by
the fact that he is aware of those facts.
One of the other aspects I want to make note of is the issue of the
immigration courts. I want to quickly commend this legislation for
keeping the Executive Office for Immigration Review within the
Department of Justice. It didn't move over homeland security. I think
permitting the Attorney General to retain control of the immigration
court system is going to be positive.
I think those are some problems we need to revisit. We should do so
in the future.
It is time we pass the homeland security legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we have come to the end of a long, long
road. For nearly 5 months, this Chamber has engaged in discussions
about homeland security. But for nearly as long a time as that, this
Congress has not engaged in seeing to it that there is actual funding
to make our people any safer from the threat of another horrific
terrorist attack. It has been over 4 months--over 4 months--since the
House of Representatives has seen fit to pass a single regular
appropriations bill.
Now, God created all of creation. He created the universe. He created
the Earth. He created man in 7 days, in the Book of Genesis. The
greatest scientific treatise that has ever been written can be found in
that first chapter of Genesis. Go to it. Those of you who are
scientists, look over that one, the first chapter of Genesis. Do you
have any problem with the chronological order in which the creation was
made possible, as set forth in that chapter? No. The scientists won't
have any objection to that chronological order, not any. I have four
physicists in my own family, and they agree with that, that
chronological order.
So 6 days, and God rested on the Sabbath.
How long has it taken for us to pass a regular appropriations bill?
The last regular appropriations bill came out of the House 4 months
ago. It has been over 4 months since the House of Representatives has
seen fit to pass a single regular appropriations bill.
[[Page S11458]]
Now, God would not have gotten very far in the creation of this
universe, would He, if it had taken Him that long at that pace?
We have talked a lot about homeland security. We have plenty of talk.
We just open our mouths, and it just rolls out--rolls out. So talk is
cheap.
But we have done very little. We have not given the cities and
municipalities, the police, the firemen, the hospital workers, the
first responders who are on the front line, we have not given these
people one red cent--I will say, one copper cent--not one, to help them
keep us safer from the madmen within our midst--in 4 months. Now, get
that.
Nothing was said about that during the campaign. The President went
all over this country--from the Pacific to the Atlantic, to the
Canadian border, to the Gulf of Mexico--talking about this great bill
here, this magnificent product of human genius in the bowels of the
White House. Not one word was said about these appropriations that have
been passed by the Senate and the House that have been on the
President's desk--$5.1 billion, in one instance, made available to the
President for homeland security. All that was needed was the President
to flourish the pen, attach his signature, and designate that money as
an emergency. The Congress has already done it. He said no.
So homeland security has gone wanting. That money has been there--
$2.5 billion for homeland security. That is two and a half dollars for
every minute since Jesus Christ was born, two and a half dollars for
every minute.
So it has been a little over a year and 2 months now since America
was jolted from its tranquility by the noise, the smoke, the flames of
two exploding commercial airlines as they smashed into the Twin Towers
in New York City. Yet in these intervening months--except for the
initial help that we provided to New York and to Washington to aid in
closing the hemorrhaging wounds of economic disruption and human
devastation caused by the terrorist attacks--not enough has changed
here at home.
It is true that we have chased bin Laden across the landscape of
Afghanistan. We have spent over $20 billion chasing him around in
Afghanistan. And now we don't actually know where he has been chased
to. We have chased bin Laden across the landscape of Afghanistan and
probably cleansed that nation of the training camps for terrorists, for
now.
We have made some progress, I am sure, in some disruption of the al-
Qaida network worldwide, but no one in this Chamber, and no one in this
city, can look the American people in the eye and say to them: ``Today
you are much safer here at home than you were 14 months ago.'' I can't
do it.
This Government continues to send out first one alert and then
another. Practically the whole litany of top people in this
administration has been out there at one time or another saying:
Something may happen here tomorrow. Something may happen here within
the next week. So the Nation has been put on alert after alert. So I
ask the question: Are you better off than you were a year ago?
Because of reckless disregard for the reality of the threat to our
domestic security, this administration and many in this Congress have
taken part in an irresponsible exercise in political chicanery.
The White House has pressured its Republican colleagues in the
Congress--and some of the Democrats as well--to reject billions of
dollars in money which could have added to the tangible safety of the
American people.
This White House has stopped--stopped--this year's normal funding
process in its tracks. I have never seen such action before. This White
House has stopped this year's normal funding process in its tracks.
This year--since 1976, when the beginning of the fiscal year was
changed from July 1 to October 1--only two appropriations bills have
passed the Congress and been sent to the White House--only two. That is
the most dismal record since 1976; the most dismal record, only two
bills. What a lousy record.
But this Senate Appropriations Committee reported out all 13
appropriations bills to the Senate no later than July--the best record
in years. And yet only two bills have been signed by the President.
Why? Because this administration, down there in the White House--we all
know who is in the White House--has told the Republican leadership in
the other body: Don't let any more appropriations bills pass.
This White House has stopped this year's normal funding process in
its tracks and even turned back funds for homeland security in
emergency spending bills that could have shored up existing mechanisms
to prevent or respond to another devastating blow by fanatics who hate
the United States.
They do not hate the United States because of its freedoms. The
President says they hate us because of our freedoms. I do not believe
that. I think they hate us because of our arrogance.
They have done this plain disservice to the people. They have done
this plain disservice to the people in order to gain some perceived
political advantage in a congressional election year, and in order to
be able to say that they were holding down spending.
So they kept 11 of the appropriations bills from coming down to the
White House. But you watch this administration after the turn of the
new year. You will never see such fast operating on appropriations
bills as we will see then. We have done our work on these bills. But
for the most part they have not been sent to the White House because
the administration said: We don't want them.
The administration told the Republican leadership in the other body:
We don't want them. Hold them up.
But once this new leadership takes over in January, you watch how
quickly they will say: Now send those bills on down. We want to show
the American people how fast we can appropriate money, how fast we can
move appropriations bills--when all the while the ``we'' they are
thinking about is the ``we'' that has held up those appropriations
bills and not let them come to the White House.
In order to avoid criticism of the too meager dollars for homeland
security, this White House suddenly did an about-face and embraced the
concept of a Department of Homeland Security. Don't send us your
appropriations for homeland security. Send that bill up there because
that is a great political hat trick. Send us the bill on homeland
security. Make the people think they are going to have more security in
their schools and their homes and their businesses and on their farms.
So the people are being offered a bureaucratic behemoth complete with
fancy top-heavy directorates, officious new titles, and noble sounding
missions instead of real tools to help protect them from death and
destruction. How utterly irresponsible. How utterly callous. How
cavalier.
With this debate about homeland security, politics in Washington has
reached the apogee of utter cynicism and the perigee of candor. No one
is telling our people the plain, unvarnished truth. It is simply this:
This Department is a bureaucratic behemoth cooked up by political
advisors to the President to satisfy several inside Washington agendas.
One, it is intended to protect the President from criticism and fault
should another attack occur.
Two, it is intended to eliminate large numbers of dedicated, trained,
experienced, loyal, patriotic Federal workers so that lucrative
contracts for their services may be awarded to favored private
entities. Watch. Watch and see.
Three, it would be used to channel Federal research moneys and grants
to big corporate contributors without the usual Federal procurement
standards that ensure fair competition and best value for the tax
dollar.
Four, it will foster easier spying and information gathering on
ordinary citizens which may be used in ways which could have nothing
whatsoever to do with homeland security. And now with this new bill,
with the blue ribbon that will be tied around it, the fancy trimmings
that will be around that bill when it goes down to the White House and
then to be invited--how wonderful, how glorious that will be, to be
invited. I haven't been down there in so long. It is called the Rose
Garden--into that Rose Garden, just to be there in the presence of the
chief executive, the Commander in Chief, when he signs this bill into
law, this new bill which showed up only last week on the doorstep of
the Senate, how wonderful that will be, how utterly wonderful that will
be.
[[Page S11459]]
Insult has been added to injury by provisions that further exploit
the already shamefully exploited issue of homeland security with pork
for certain States and certain businesses. My, my, my, how low we have
sunk.
Senators seem to be unaware or unconcerned about the transfer of
power that will take place under this bill. Some of the Senators who
have walked down to that table and who have voted aye on this bill and
who voted no on amendments that have been offered to improve it, they
will have room, they will have time to remember. They will have time to
remember how they were stampeded into voting without asking questions.
The most glaring example can be found in title XV of the bill which
requires the President to submit a reorganization plan to the Congress
which would outline how he plans to transfer to the new Department 28
agencies and offices authorized by the Congress. The authority granted
to the President under this title is very broad. The President can
reorganize, streamline, or consolidate the 28 agencies and offices
being transferred.
The President can determine which functions of the agencies being
transferred will be moved to the new Department and which will be left
behind. The President can determine how the functions transferred to
the new Department will be delegated among the officers within the new
Department. The President can set any effective date he wants for
transferring these agencies within a 12-month transition period. The
President can change his plan at any time before the plan takes effect.
The only requirement placed on the President is that heavy charter,
that great burdensome charge; namely, that he inform the Congress of
his plans before those plans take effect. My, what a heavy burden. The
Congress does not have the opportunity to approve or disapprove of the
President's plan. We have no mechanism by which to object to the
President's plan. The Congress is locked out by our own doing, forced
to watch from the sidelines as the administration implements this new
Department.
What a great Senate this is, in this hour of God. The Senate, I have
to say, has let the people down. The Senate has grown timid. It has
lost its nerve. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Congress
would cut itself out of the loop like that. Congress is authorizing the
President to reorganize, consolidate, or streamline any one of the 28
agencies and offices being moved to the new Department and to delegate
functions among the officers however he wishes. And the only
requirement placed on the President, as I say, is that he humble
himself enough just to let the Congress know what he plans to do.
After we pass this bill, the Congress will have abdicated its role in
the implementation of the new Department. We might as well just dive
under the bed and say: Here goes nothing.
I find this to be unacceptable and unwise. Other Senators should
agree.
Last September I offered an amendment that would have allowed the
Congress to stay involved and to help provide for a more orderly,
efficient, effective transition of agencies to this new Department. The
Congress would have had a mechanism in place to guard against abuses of
this authority that we are granting to the President, if my amendment
had been adopted.
The distinguished Senator from Minnesota, presently sitting in the
chair, voted for my amendment. But the Senate rejected my amendment--
incidentally, the Senator who sits in the chair had, I will say, a
kinsman who signed the Constitution of the United States. How many
signers were there? Thirty-nine. He was one of the signers; his name
was Jonathan Dayton. How old was he? He was the youngest member of the
convention, the youngest, younger than Charles Pinckney. I believe
Charles Pinckney was the next youngest. Dayton was the youngest, 24
years old, I believe, 25 or 26--24, I believe--choosing instead to
trust the administration to handle the implementation of the new
Department without congressional input.
That decision, in my view, was a disservice to our States and the
people who sent us here to look out for them. With passage of the new
House bill, we have in effect washed our hands of any further ability
to affect decisions regarding the way the Department is organized or
the functions that it will perform.
The Nation will have this unfortunate creature, this behemoth
bureaucratic bag of tricks, this huge Department of Homeland Security,
and it will hulk across the landscape of this city, touting its noble
mission, shining up its new seal, and eagerly gobbling up tax dollars
for all manner of things, some of which will have very little to do
with protecting or saving the lives of the American people.
Maybe in 5 years or so it will sort out its mission and shift around
its desks enough to actually make some real contribution to the safety
of our people. I sincerely hope so. But if the latest tape from bin
Laden is to be believed, we won't have time for all of that.
If the latest threat assessment from the FBI can be believed, we will
experience something catastrophic before that new Department even
finishes firing all of the Federal workers it wants to get rid of.
What does it take to wake us up? What does it take to make the
gamesmanship cease? When will we stop the political mud wrestling and
begin to wrestle with the most potentially destructive force ever to
challenge this Nation?
Let us hope that when the gavel bangs to close down this session of
Congress, it will awaken us to all of the dreadful consequences of
continued posturing and inaction.
I know that this administration, with its newfound majorities in both
Houses of Congress, will quickly pass the remaining 2003 bills, which
will provide at least some modicum of real security for our people as
soon as Congress reconvenes in January of the new year. They will want
to claim that they can get things done.
Although I deplore the motivation and the gamesmanship behind such
tactics, I wish them well and pledge my help. It is long past time for
us to finally do our best to prevent another deadly strike by those who
hate us and wish us ill. Terrorism is no plaything. Political service
is no game. Political office is no place for warring children.
The oath of office which we take is no empty pledge to be subjugated
to the tactics of election year chicanery perpetrated on a good and
trusting people.
Yesterday, a Federal appeals court upheld broad, new powers given to
the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute people suspected of
terrorism. The ruling of the special appeals court, which was created
by Congress to oversee secret Government actions involving national
security, will make it easier for the Justice Department to spy on U.S.
citizens by circumventing traditional constitutional protections. This
court decision gives the executive branch a green light to run
roughshod over the civil liberties of innocent Americans in the name of
national security.
The Justice Department argued that the expanded authority it is
claiming is nothing more than what Congress authorized in last year's
USA Patriot Act, in which Congress tore down the protective walls that
had previously separated foreign intelligence and domestic law
enforcement activities. A three-judge appeals panel agreed with the
Justice Department, concluding that the new antiterrorism law did have
the effect of weakening procedures that safeguard our civil liberties.
The Justice Department now wields dangerous, new power to conduct
secret surveillance on American citizens for potential criminal
prosecutions. This expanded power is a license for abuse, and Senators
should be concerned about the consequences for our constitutional
system.
But any of us who wants to point his finger at the administration for
overreaching its authority should also place that blame squarely on
himself or herself, because it was the actions of this Senate that set
the wheels in motion.
As the Washington Post points out in an editorial entitled ``Chipping
Away at Liberty'' from this morning's paper:
The fault for the problem . . . lies not with the court,
but with Congress, for the carelessness and haste with which
it passed the USA Patriot Act in the wake of the September 11
attacks, and for its unwillingness to push back against Bush
administration excesses.
The editorial goes on to explain that this new authority grants the
Government one more sphere in which it gets
[[Page S11460]]
to unilaterally choose the rules under which it will pursue the war on
terrorism. . . .Which parts of this system need to be reigned in is a
profoundly difficult question, one that Congress seems depressingly
uninterested in asking. This is a war, the administration has said,
without a foreseeable end, so the legal regime that handles these cases
may become a permanent feature of American justice. Such a regime
should be enacted deliberately, after careful inquiry by legislators--
an inquiry that has so far scarcely begun.
Mr. President, this Senate passed the USA Patriot Act in October of
2001 by a vote of 98 to 1. I voted for it. Ninety-eight Senators,
including myself, this Senator from West Virginia, voted for the bill.
Perhaps many of us now realize that we may indeed have acted too
hastily to hand over this unchecked power to the executive branch.
During the debate on that bill, one Senator stood up and pleaded with
us to take the time to consider the legislation more carefully before
we unleashed such a dangerous and uncontrolled threat to our civil
liberties. Senator Feingold stood alone in the path of that Mack truck
that was barreling through the Senate, warning that many of us would
come to regret our decision to stand out of the way and cheer on the
rumbling big rig.
I believe that Senator Feingold was right to caution the Senate
during that debate. I believe we did pass the Patriot Act too hastily.
As the media continue to uncover more stories about the lengths to
which this administration will go to shroud its actions in secrecy, I
hope other Senators will also come to the conclusion that these issues
deserve more attention from this Congress.
During this debate on homeland security, I have tried to convince the
Senate to slow down and look closely at this legislation before giving
the executive branch such a broad grant of virtually unchecked
authority. I have tried to draw attention to some of the problems in
this bill in the short time that we have had to examine it. I have
tried to persuade Senators not to give into the political pressures
that have loomed over our consideration of this bill before and after
this year's election.
So I hope that Senators will heed the warnings and vote against this
bill, although I do not really believe that will happen. I have seen
the handwriting on the wall, and I know that this bill has the votes to
pass. But I hope that those Senators who worry that we are acting too
hastily will have the courage to vote against the bill.
There will be a lot of work to be done in the next Congress to clean
up the mess we will make by enacting this homeland security
legislation. Congress will have already cut itself out of the loop with
regard to the implementation of this new Department. It will be
incumbent upon individual Members of the Senate to attempt to shed
light on the administration's actions whenever possible. It will be the
responsibility of individual Members to fight to defend the
constitutional powers of Congress and the constitutional protections of
our personal privacy and civil liberties.
There will be a lot left to do in the name of homeland security
during the next Congress. I hope each Senator will remember that when
he or she votes on this bill, and I hope the Senators do not treat this
vote as something to put behind them. When Senators cast their votes on
final passage of this homeland security legislation, I hope that they
will understand and think about what that vote will mean a year from
now when their voters ask them: Where were you when the Senate approved
this bill?
I urge those Senators who are troubled by this legislation, as I am,
to vote with me against the bill. I know where I will be when the
Senate votes to hand over this power, and my people will know that I
did what I could to put the brakes on this process. I hope that other
Senators will also send a message to the people they represent about
where they stand by voting against the final passage of the homeland
security bill.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). There are 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. BYRD. I reserve that time.
Farewell To Senator Fred Thompson
Mr. President, with the closing of the 107th Congress, the Senate
will be saying farewell to a very talented and successful and effective
colleague, a Senator who in a relatively short period of time has made
important contributions to this Chamber and to our country.
Senator Fred Thompson has accomplished so much that it is difficult
to realize he has only been here since 1995. As a Senator, he has
served on the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, and the National Security Working Group. In 1997, he
became chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs where he
conducted a number of important and controversial investigations.
As a national lawmaker, Senator Fred Thompson has played an important
role in developing this Nation's trade policies, including pushing for
an export control policy to protect our country's national security and
proposing legislation to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. He has been an active and important advocate for campaign
finance reform. He has authored legislation to protect Government
computers from outside infiltration. He has been a major force for
regulatory reform.
As chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, he helped lead the
fight to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in Government, and along with
Senator Frist, Senator Thompson secured funding to establish a School
of Government at the University of Tennessee named in honor of
University of Tennessee graduate and one of my favorite Senators of all
time, Senator Howard Baker.
He is one of my favorite Senators of all time. He is a statesman. He
is not just a politician. He is a statesman. If it had not been for
Howard Baker, for his statesmanship, the Senate would never have
approved the Panama Canal treaties. It would never have done it. It
required a two-thirds vote, and all the polls showed the Senate was
swimming upstream. The majority of the people were against those
treaties. But Howard Baker stepped to the plate, at a political
sacrifice to himself, and stood for those treaties.
I was majority leader of the Senate at that time. Howard Baker was
the minority leader. I could not have gotten those treaties approved
but for the strong support of Howard Baker. It was kind of the same way
for Howard Baker as his father-in-law, Everett Dirksen. If Everett
Dirksen had not stepped to the plate, the Senate would never have
passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It was Everett Dirksen who joined
with Mike Mansfield and that legislation was passed.
I should point out that Senator Thompson has not always been
successful in his efforts. At times, his has been a lonely voice and a
lonely vote against popular measures that went against his sense of
federalism and his concern that the National Government was encroaching
upon the rights of the States. Even when I opposed him on some of these
issues, I admired the strength of his convictions.
I will miss him and his courage, and so will the people of Tennessee.
In 1996, the people of Tennessee cast more votes for him than for any
previous candidate for any office in the history of the State. Now how
about that? That is pretty remarkable.
In addition to his many legislative accomplishments, perhaps the
reason Senator Thompson seems to have been with us for a longer period
of time than is reflected by his actual years as Senator is that he is
so associated in the public mind with politics.
In 1973, when I was the majority whip in the Senate, Fred Thompson
served as minority counsel on the Senate Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities, known as the Watergate Committee. He
was a very effective staff person. I can remember his work.
Many people have also seen him on the silver screen portraying a CIA
chief, an FBI Director, a White House Chief of Staff. I am not about to
ask which of these roles best prepared him for his real-life role as a
Senator.
This has truly been a remarkable career for the son of a used car
salesman who worked his way through law school while raising a family.
I applaud Fred Thompson, and I congratulate him. We will miss Senator
Thompson.
I have watched him during this short time when he has been in the
Senate. I
[[Page S11461]]
have admired him. I admire his bearing, his manner of talking, moving
about the Senate and doing his work. He is not a show horse here in the
Senate, but he has been a workhorse. I do not know of any enemies he
has made in this Senate on either side of the aisle.
We will miss him. I understand he will be resuming an acting career.
I can only say that the Senate's loss is Hollywood's gain. All of us
look forward to seeing him as he resumes his earlier career as a fine
actor. I do not watch TV much, and I have not been to a movie in the 50
years I have been in Congress. I have not been to a movie, not one. I
have watched some good movies on television. Alistair Cooke, for
example, used to have good movies. If I know Fred Thompson is going to
play, I will make a point to go and see him.
Retirement Of Senator Phil Gramm
Mr. President, seldom in all my years in the Senate have I
encountered a Senator for whom my feelings and attitudes have covered
such a wide spectrum as they have for Senator Phil Gramm. They have
ranged from intense opposition, as they did in our battles over the
Gramm-Rudman legislation, to close cooperation as we worked together
during his 6 years on the Appropriations Committee.
Always prepared, always thoughtful, he was always ready to speak on
any subject at the drop of a hat. Phil Gramm was always ready to talk
and, oh, was he ready to talk. I quickly learned he can talk about
anything, everything, and do so intelligently, and always with a good
humor, in the best of good humor.
It was during our years together on the Appropriations Committee that
I learned of his respect for the Senate and its role in our democratic
Republic. He once referred to his work in the Senate as doing the
Lord's work. He has often referred to it as doing the Lord's work. I
liked that. I wish I had said that first.
He has also demonstrated an understanding that fundamental power of
Congress is the power of the purse. For that, I applaud Senator Gramm,
and I thank him.
In addition to our work together on the Appropriations Committee, we
have worked together on important national legislation, including the
highway reauthorization bill, TEA-21. I saw that he has a remarkable
talent for grassroots organizing.
I watched him here today as he moved around the Chamber. I knew what
he was doing. He was talking with some of these Democratic Senators. I
knew what he was talking with them about. Someone said: That Senator,
you see Senator Gramm, that Democratic Senator will vote against the
amendment by Mr. Daschle and Mr. Lieberman. I knew what he was doing,
but I respected that.
During a difficult struggle on that highway bill, TEA-21, Phil and I
met with representatives from a number of organizations interested in
highway construction. I believe my friend from New Mexico was in on
some of those meetings.
Mr. DOMENICI. I was opposed.
Mr. BYRD. He was opposed. When the Senator from New Mexico is
opposed, I pay even more attention to him. Anyhow, after each meeting,
our friends would walk away with plans for spreading the good word in
favor of our plan, charged up with a pep talk by Phil Gramm. He also
has a talent, a great talent, for negotiating. Even when he wins a
negotiation and you have lost everything, he can make you feel like you
prevailed and he lost everything. Suddenly, on the way home you will
pinch yourself and say, wait a minute, that is not quite the way it
was.
So this is Phil Gramm, a biting, partisan bulldog one minute, and a
gentle, cuddly puppy the next. At times, it is difficult to decide if
you should jump back in fright or reach out and pet him.
He is one of those rare Members of Congress who has had a powerful
impact not only upon this institution but on our country and its
policies. Just last year, the National Review pointed out that no
Member of Congress--not Jack Kemp, not Newt Gingrich, not Bob Dole--
played a more decisive role in launching the Reagan agenda.
Phil Gramm is perhaps this country's most consistent and strongest
promoter of smaller taxes and smaller government. The legislation he
has authored, sponsored and promoted, from Gramm-Latta to Gramm-Rudman,
to the Bush tax cuts, give the lie to Emerson's observation that a
``foolish consistency is the hobgoblin'' of little minds. It is also
the hobgoblin of big minds.
Phil Gramm definitely has a big mind. I have learned so much from
him. I certainly learned a lot about his ``mamma.'' Among other things,
I learned she receives Social Security, that she carries a gun, and she
knows how to use it. That is what Phil says.
I certainly learned more than I ever wanted to know about Dicky
Flatt, the hard-working print shop owner in Mexia, TX, and how the
Government keeps taking away his money to spend on someone else.
I learned do not mess with Phil Gramm. He has an intellect second to
none. He has a tenaciousness and he has a razor tongue second to none.
But throughout it all, let me assure my colleagues that my
disagreements have never lessened my respect and my admiration for the
man and Senator. He was always straightforward and fair and always
sincerely dedicated to the cause he was espousing or supporting, and
that no doubt was because his positions on the most important issues
facing our Nation were always deeply thought out and heartfelt
convictions; not simply political calculations. That is why I came to
respect his integrity, his wisdom, and his courage.
In his book, ``Profiles in Courage,'' Senator John F. Kennedy wrote:
Surely in the United States of America, where brother once
fought brother, we did not judge a man's bravery under fire
by examining the banner under which he fought.
Senator Gramm and I have fought under different banners, but we have
always fought under and for the same flag. Whatever he did, whatever he
said, whatever he promoted, it came from his deep, undeviating love of
the United States of America. While he is always ready to tell you what
is wrong with our country, he will never hesitate to tell you what is
right with it. We will miss him.
There he is. I did not realize that while I was talking about the
man, he was sitting here listening, but I can say to the Senate that on
more than one occasion, Senator Phil Gramm has come to my office on
difficult matters, in which I may have had some interest, as in
mountaintop mining or the highway bill, whatever it was, and in many
instances he has proposed a compromise which enabled us to get over a
mountain, get over a hump, and get on with the business.
I appreciate the contributions he has made to legislation in this
body. I do not know of any Senator who has been a more knowledgeable
and able legislator. The Senator has exemplified reverence for the
Constitution, respect for the Senate, and an unbounded love for his
country.
While he will no longer be my colleague, Phil Gramm will always be my
friend.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, what is the order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has 5 minutes. The
minority retains 2 minutes of time.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will have more to say about our
departing colleagues tomorrow, but let me share as well my admiration
for our colleague Senator Gramm. He is a hardened legislative
adversary, but I have a great deal of respect for his ability and the
manner with which he conducts himself on the floor. I have fond
memories of the many years we have served together.
I recall so vividly our first days together riding a bus as freshmen
Congressman in 1979. So we wish him well. As I said, I will have much
more to say about him and about our colleagues tomorrow.
I wanted to come to the floor simply to express what I have said on
several occasions. It is with some misgivings that I will cast my vote
tonight in favor of the creation of this Department. I do so, fearful
we have not done the kind of work on this legislation I wish we could
have. I do so even though language has been inserted in the bill I
think we are going to regret, but I do so recognizing we have to start
rebuilding our infrastructure, reorganizing our Government, recognizing
[[Page S11462]]
more consequentially the threat that is now posed by terrorism within
our borders as well as without. I intend to support this legislation
with every expectation that this is the first in a long series of steps
which must be taken to better prepare our country and our Government. I
have no doubt we will be back next year addressing many of the
shortcomings we will be incorporating in this legislation tonight.
This bill still needs work. This Department needs work. But as much
work as it needs, not to have done anything in recognition of the
tremendous challenges we face as a country is something I could not
accept either. So I will support it, recognizing as well that it is
critical for us to provide the funding--and there is no funding. In
fact, if I have any regret about what we are doing tonight, it is that
we are not passing the requisite resources needed to get started in an
earnest and successful way. We are going to have to wait until next
year. The more we wait, the harder it will be. The more we wait, the
more complicated our mission. The more we wait, the more underfunded
will be our effort in so many other ways.
I regret we are not willing to commit the resources that match the
infrastructure we will be authorizing tonight.
Finally, let me say there are many people who deserve recognition and
thanks. I acknowledge especially the leadership of Senator Joe
Lieberman, the chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee. He and
others on the committee have done an outstanding job getting us to this
point, whether or not you agree with all of the components of the bill.
I congratulate Senator Thompson as the ranking member. They worked
oftentimes together, and where they could not work together, they
worked in a way that was not disagreeable.
I thank the whole Governmental Affairs Committee for the work they
did in getting us to this point over the many months they have been
involved.
Let me say I also thank Senator Byrd. He and I may come down on
different sides tonight, but he has done the Senate and the country a
real service. I have admired him for many reasons for many years. But
his powerful advocacy of his position, the extraordinary effort he has
made to enlighten us, to educate us, to sensitize us, and to ensure
that we are fully aware of all of the concerns he has about the
creation of this Department is something for which we all ought to
express our deep indebtedness to him. I thank him for what he has done
in adding to the debate, acknowledging as he has the inevitability of
our consideration and ultimately the passage of this legislation
tonight. There are many others, including Senator Harry Reid, our
extraordinary deputy Democratic leader, all the work he has done to
allow this opportunity to complete our work tonight.
As I said, we will be in session tomorrow and we will have much more
to say about many of these issues, reflecting back, but I close simply
by thanking our colleagues for the work they have done. I hope we can
complete our work and pass this legislation tonight.
I also ask, following the first vote, all subsequent votes be limited
to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, it is my understanding we have 2 minutes
remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
Mr. GRAMM. I could hardly say what I feel in my heart in 2 minutes.
Too often, as people leave the Senate, they talk about things they are
unhappy about. I want people to know I am not discouraged; I am not
disillusioned; I am not disappointed. I am proud and I am honored. I am
proud to have had an opportunity to serve the greatest country in the
history of the world. I am proud to have served with extraordinary men
and women. I think we are so close to them and what they have done here
that it is hard to put it all in perspective. But someday when I am
sitting in a nursing home talking to my grandchildren, I think I will
have that perspective right and there will be names such as Senator
Byrd, Senator Domenici, and others that will flow from my lips as men I
was honored to know and to love.
I thank the people of Texas for giving me an opportunity to serve. I
conclude by reading a remark by, of all people, Aaron Burr. Senator
Byrd is familiar with it. It is wonderful and I want to conclude by
reading it. Aaron Burr was leaving the Senate, and he concluded with
these remarks:
. . . this house is a sanctuary and a citadel of law, of
order, of liberty--and it is here--it is here--in this
exalted--refuge, here, if anywhere will resistance be made to
the storms of popular phrenzy and the silent arts of
corruption:--And if the Constitution be destined ever to
perish by the sacrilegious hands of the demagogue of the
Usurper, which God avert, its expiring agonies will be
witnessed on this floor.
I am honored to have served here. I am honored to have served with
those who will be sure, in their efforts, in their work, that the
Constitution never expires.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on the
engrossment of the amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read a third time.
Mr. GRAMM. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the
bill pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 9, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 249 Leg.]
YEAS--90
Allard
Allen
Barkley
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--9
Akaka
Byrd
Feingold
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Levin
Sarbanes
NOT VOTING--1
Murkowski
The bill (H.R. 5005), as amended, was passed, as follows:
Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives
(H.R. 5005) entitled ``An Act to establish the Department of
Homeland Security, and for other purposes.'', do pass with
the following amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Homeland
Security Act of 2002''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Construction; severability.
Sec. 4. Effective date.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Sec. 101. Executive department; mission.
Sec. 102. Secretary; functions.
Sec. 103. Other officers.
TITLE II--INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
Subtitle A--Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection; Access to Information
Sec. 201. Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection.
Sec. 202. Access to information.
Subtitle B--Critical Infrastructure Information
Sec. 211. Short title.
[[Page S11463]]
Sec. 212. Definitions.
Sec. 213. Designation of critical infrastructure protection program.
Sec. 214. Protection of voluntarily shared critical infrastructure
information.
Sec. 215. No private right of action.
Subtitle C--Information Security
Sec. 221. Procedures for sharing information.
Sec. 222. Privacy Officer.
Sec. 223. Enhancement of non-Federal cybersecurity.
Sec. 224. Net guard.
Sec. 225. Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002.
Subtitle D--Office of Science and Technology
Sec. 231. Establishment of office; Director.
Sec. 232. Mission of office; duties.
Sec. 233. Definition of law enforcement technology.
Sec. 234. Abolishment of Office of Science and Technology of National
Institute of Justice; transfer of functions.
Sec. 235. National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers.
Sec. 236. Coordination with other entities within Department of
Justice.
Sec. 237. Amendments relating to National Institute of Justice.
TITLE III--SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Sec. 301. Under Secretary for Science and Technology.
Sec. 302. Responsibilities and authorities of the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology.
Sec. 303. Functions transferred.
Sec. 304. Conduct of certain public health-related activities.
Sec. 305. Federally funded research and development centers.
Sec. 306. Miscellaneous provisions.
Sec. 307. Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Sec. 308. Conduct of research, development, demonstration, testing and
evaluation.
Sec. 309. Utilization of Department of Energy national laboratories and
sites in support of homeland security activities.
Sec. 310. Transfer of Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Department of
Agriculture.
Sec. 311. Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee.
Sec. 312. Homeland Security Institute.
Sec. 313. Technology clearinghouse to encourage and support innovative
solutions to enhance homeland security.
TITLE IV--DIRECTORATE OF BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
Subtitle A--Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security
Sec. 401. Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security.
Sec. 402. Responsibilities.
Sec. 403. Functions transferred.
Subtitle B--United States Customs Service
Sec. 411. Establishment; Commissioner of Customs.
Sec. 412. Retention of customs revenue functions by Secretary of the
Treasury.
Sec. 413. Preservation of customs funds.
Sec. 414. Separate budget request for customs.
Sec. 415. Definition.
Sec. 416. GAO report to Congress.
Sec. 417. Allocation of resources by the Secretary.
Sec. 418. Reports to Congress.
Sec. 419. Customs user fees.
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 421. Transfer of certain agricultural inspection functions of the
Department of Agriculture.
Sec. 422. Functions of Administrator of General Services.
Sec. 423. Functions of Transportation Security Administration.
Sec. 424. Preservation of Transportation Security Administration as a
distinct entity.
Sec. 425. Explosive detection systems.
Sec. 426. Transportation security.
Sec. 427. Coordination of information and information technology.
Sec. 428. Visa issuance.
Sec. 429. Information on visa denials required to be entered into
electronic data system.
Sec. 430. Office for Domestic Preparedness.
Subtitle D--Immigration Enforcement Functions
Sec. 441. Transfer of functions to Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security.
Sec. 442. Establishment of Bureau of Border Security.
Sec. 443. Professional responsibility and quality review.
Sec. 444. Employee discipline.
Sec. 445. Report on improving enforcement functions.
Sec. 446. Sense of Congress regarding construction of fencing near San
Diego, California.
Subtitle E--Citizenship and Immigration Services
Sec. 451. Establishment of Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services.
Sec. 452. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman.
Sec. 453. Professional responsibility and quality review.
Sec. 454. Employee discipline.
Sec. 455. Effective date.
Sec. 456. Transition.
Sec. 457. Funding for citizenship and immigration services.
Sec. 458. Backlog elimination.
Sec. 459. Report on improving immigration services.
Sec. 460. Report on responding to fluctuating needs.
Sec. 461. Application of Internet-based technologies.
Sec. 462. Children's affairs.
Subtitle F--General Immigration Provisions
Sec. 471. Abolishment of INS.
Sec. 472. Voluntary separation incentive payments.
Sec. 473. Authority to conduct a demonstration project relating to
disciplinary action.
Sec. 474. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 475. Director of Shared Services.
Sec. 476. Separation of funding.
Sec. 477. Reports and implementation plans.
Sec. 478. Immigration functions.
TITLE V--EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
Sec. 501. Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response.
Sec. 502. Responsibilities.
Sec. 503. Functions transferred.
Sec. 504. Nuclear incident response.
Sec. 505. Conduct of certain public health-related activities.
Sec. 506. Definition.
Sec. 507. Role of Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Sec. 508. Use of national private sector networks in emergency
response.
Sec. 509. Use of commercially available technology, goods, and
services.
TITLE VI--TREATMENT OF CHARITABLE TRUSTS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
Sec. 601. Treatment of charitable trusts for members of the Armed
Forces of the United States and other governmental
organizations.
TITLE VII--MANAGEMENT
Sec. 701. Under Secretary for Management.
Sec. 702. Chief Financial Officer.
Sec. 703. Chief Information Officer.
Sec. 704. Chief Human Capital Officer.
Sec. 705. Establishment of Officer for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties.
Sec. 706. Consolidation and co-location of offices.
TITLE VIII--COORDINATION WITH NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES; INSPECTOR GENERAL;
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; COAST GUARD; GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Coordination with Non-Federal Entities
Sec. 801. Office for State and Local Government Coordination.
Subtitle B--Inspector General
Sec. 811. Authority of the Secretary.
Sec. 812. Law enforcement powers of Inspector General agents.
Subtitle C--United States Secret Service
Sec. 821. Functions transferred.
Subtitle D--Acquisitions
Sec. 831. Research and development projects.
Sec. 832. Personal services.
Sec. 833. Special streamlined acquisition authority.
Sec. 834. Unsolicited proposals.
Sec. 835. Prohibition on contracts with corporate expatriates.
Subtitle E--Human Resources Management
Sec. 841. Establishment of Human Resources Management System.
Sec. 842. Labor-management relations.
Subtitle F--Federal Emergency Procurement Flexibility
Sec. 851. Definition.
Sec. 852. Procurements for defense against or recovery from terrorism
or nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack.
Sec. 853. Increased simplified acquisition threshold for procurements
in support of humanitarian or peacekeeping operations or
contingency operations.
Sec. 854. Increased micro-purchase threshold for certain procurements.
Sec. 855. Application of certain commercial items authorities to
certain procurements.
Sec. 856. Use of streamlined procedures.
Sec. 857. Review and report by Comptroller General.
Sec. 858. Identification of new entrants into the Federal marketplace.
Subtitle G--Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies
Act of 2002
Sec. 861. Short title.
Sec. 862. Administration.
Sec. 863. Litigation management.
Sec. 864. Risk management.
Sec. 865. Definitions.
Subtitle H--Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 871. Advisory committees.
Sec. 872. Reorganization.
Sec. 873. Use of appropriated funds.
Sec. 874. Future Year Homeland Security Program.
Sec. 875. Miscellaneous authorities.
Sec. 876. Military activities.
Sec. 877. Regulatory authority and preemption.
Sec. 878. Counternarcotics officer.
Sec. 879. Office of International Affairs.
Sec. 880. Prohibition of the Terrorism Information and Prevention
System.
Sec. 881. Review of pay and benefit plans.
Sec. 882. Office for National Capital Region Coordination.
Sec. 883. Requirement to comply with laws protecting equal employment
opportunity and providing whistleblower protections.
[[Page S11464]]
Sec. 884. Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
Sec. 885. Joint Interagency Task Force.
Sec. 886. Sense of Congress reaffirming the continued importance and
applicability of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Sec. 887. Coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services
under the Public Health Service Act.
Sec. 888. Preserving Coast Guard mission performance.
Sec. 889. Homeland security funding analysis in President's budget.
Sec. 890. Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act.
Subtitle I--Information Sharing
Sec. 891. Short title; findings; and sense of Congress.
Sec. 892. Facilitating homeland security information sharing
procedures.
Sec. 893. Report.
Sec. 894. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 895. Authority to share grand jury information.
Sec. 896. Authority to share electronic, wire, and oral interception
information.
Sec. 897. Foreign intelligence information.
Sec. 898. Information acquired from an electronic surveillance.
Sec. 899. Information acquired from a physical search.
TITLE IX--NATIONAL HOMELAND SECURITY COUNCIL
Sec. 901. National Homeland Security Council.
Sec. 902. Function.
Sec. 903. Membership.
Sec. 904. Other functions and activities.
Sec. 905. Staff composition.
Sec. 906. Relation to the National Security Council.
TITLE X--INFORMATION SECURITY
Sec. 1001. Information security.
Sec. 1002. Management of information technology.
Sec. 1003. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Sec. 1004. Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board.
Sec. 1005. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 1006. Construction.
TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONS
Subtitle A--Executive Office for Immigration Review
Sec. 1101. Legal status of EOIR.
Sec. 1102. Authorities of the Attorney General.
Sec. 1103. Statutory construction.
Subtitle B--Transfer of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to
the Department of Justice
Sec. 1111. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Sec. 1112. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 1113. Powers of agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives.
Sec. 1114. Explosives training and research facility.
Sec. 1115. Personnel management demonstration project.
Subtitle C--Explosives
Sec. 1121. Short title.
Sec. 1122. Permits for purchasers of explosives.
Sec. 1123. Persons prohibited from receiving or possessing explosive
materials.
Sec. 1124. Requirement to provide samples of explosive materials and
ammonium nitrate.
Sec. 1125. Destruction of property of institutions receiving Federal
financial assistance.
Sec. 1126. Relief from disabilities.
Sec. 1127. Theft reporting requirement.
Sec. 1128. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE XII--AIRLINE WAR RISK INSURANCE LEGISLATION
Sec. 1201. Air carrier liability for third party claims arising out of
acts of terrorism.
Sec. 1202. Extension of insurance policies.
Sec. 1203. Correction of reference.
Sec. 1204. Report.
TITLE XIII--FEDERAL WORKFORCE IMPROVEMENT
Subtitle A--Chief Human Capital Officers
Sec. 1301. Short title.
Sec. 1302. Agency Chief Human Capital Officers.
Sec. 1303. Chief Human Capital Officers Council.
Sec. 1304. Strategic human capital management.
Sec. 1305. Effective date.
Subtitle B--Reforms Relating to Federal Human Capital Management
Sec. 1311. Inclusion of agency human capital strategic planning in
performance plans and programs performance reports.
Sec. 1312. Reform of the competitive service hiring process.
Sec. 1313. Permanent extension, revision, and expansion of authorities
for use of voluntary separation incentive pay and
voluntary early retirement.
Sec. 1314. Student volunteer transit subsidy.
Subtitle C--Reforms Relating to the Senior Executive Service
Sec. 1321. Repeal of recertification requirements of senior executives.
Sec. 1322. Adjustment of limitation on total annual compensation.
Subtitle D--Academic Training
Sec. 1331. Academic training.
Sec. 1332. Modifications to National Security Education Program.
TITLE XIV--ARMING PILOTS AGAINST TERRORISM
Sec. 1401. Short title.
Sec. 1402. Federal Flight Deck Officer Program.
Sec. 1403. Crew training.
Sec. 1404. Commercial airline security study.
Sec. 1405. Authority to arm flight deck crew with less-than-lethal
weapons.
Sec. 1406. Technical amendments.
TITLE XV--TRANSITION
Subtitle A--Reorganization Plan
Sec. 1501. Definitions.
Sec. 1502. Reorganization plan.
Sec. 1503. Review of congressional committee structures.
Subtitle B--Transitional Provisions
Sec. 1511. Transitional authorities.
Sec. 1512. Savings provisions.
Sec. 1513. Terminations.
Sec. 1514. National identification system not authorized.
Sec. 1515. Continuity of Inspector General oversight.
Sec. 1516. Incidental transfers.
Sec. 1517. Reference.
TITLE XVI--CORRECTIONS TO EXISTING LAW RELATING TO AIRLINE
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
Sec. 1601. Retention of security sensitive information authority at
Department of Transportation.
Sec. 1602. Increase in civil penalties.
Sec. 1603. Allowing United States citizens and United States nationals
as screeners.
TITLE XVII--CONFORMING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
Sec. 1701. Inspector General Act of 1978.
Sec. 1702. Executive Schedule.
Sec. 1703. United States Secret Service.
Sec. 1704. Coast Guard.
Sec. 1705. Strategic national stockpile and smallpox vaccine
development.
Sec. 1706. Transfer of certain security and law enforcement functions
and authorities.
Sec. 1707. Transportation security regulations.
Sec. 1708. National Bio-Weapons Defense Analysis Center.
Sec. 1709. Collaboration with the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Sec. 1710. Railroad safety to include railroad security.
Sec. 1711. Hazmat safety to include hazmat security.
Sec. 1712. Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Sec. 1713. National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
Sec. 1714. Clarification of definition of manufacturer.
Sec. 1715. Clarification of definition of vaccine-related injury or
death.
Sec. 1716. Clarification of definition of vaccine.
Sec. 1717. Effective date.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions apply:
(1) Each of the terms ``American homeland'' and
``homeland'' means the United States.
(2) The term ``appropriate congressional committee'' means
any committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate
having legislative or oversight jurisdiction under the Rules
of the House of Representatives or the Senate, respectively,
over the matter concerned.
(3) The term ``assets'' includes contracts, facilities,
property, records, unobligated or unexpended balances of
appropriations, and other funds or resources (other than
personnel).
(4) The term ``critical infrastructure'' has the meaning
given that term in section 1016(e) of Public Law 107-56 (42
U.S.C. 5195c(e)).
(5) The term ``Department'' means the Department of
Homeland Security.
(6) The term ``emergency response providers'' includes
Federal, State, and local emergency public safety, law
enforcement, emergency response, emergency medical (including
hospital emergency facilities), and related personnel,
agencies, and authorities.
(7) The term ``executive agency'' means an executive agency
and a military department, as defined, respectively, in
sections 105 and 102 of title 5, United States Code.
(8) The term ``functions'' includes authorities, powers,
rights, privileges, immunities, programs, projects,
activities, duties, and responsibilities.
(9) The term ``key resources'' means publicly or privately
controlled resources essential to the minimal operations of
the economy and government.
(10) The term ``local government'' means--
(A) a county, municipality, city, town, township, local
public authority, school district, special district,
intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of
whether the council of governments is incorporated as a
nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or
interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of
a local government;
(B) an Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or
in Alaska a Native village or Alaska Regional Native
Corporation; and
(C) a rural community, unincorporated town or village, or
other public entity.
(11) The term ``major disaster'' has the meaning given in
section 102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
(12) The term ``personnel'' means officers and employees.
(13) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Homeland
Security.
(14) The term ``State'' means any State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, the
[[Page S11465]]
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and any possession of the United States.
(15) The term ``terrorism'' means any activity that--
(A) involves an act that--
(i) is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive
of critical infrastructure or key resources; and
(ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or of any State or other subdivision of the United
States; and
(B) appears to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
(16)(A) The term ``United States'', when used in a
geographic sense, means any State of the United States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, any possession of the United
States, and any waters within the jurisdiction of the United
States.
(B) Nothing in this paragraph or any other provision of
this Act shall be construed to modify the definition of
``United States'' for the purposes of the Immigration and
Nationality Act or any other immigration or nationality law.
SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION; SEVERABILITY.
Any provision of this Act held to be invalid or
unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or
circumstance, shall be construed so as to give it the maximum
effect permitted by law, unless such holding shall be one of
utter invalidity or unenforceability, in which event such
provision shall be deemed severable from this Act and shall
not affect the remainder thereof, or the application of such
provision to other persons not similarly situated or to
other, dissimilar circumstances.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect 60 days after the date of
enactment.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
SEC. 101. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT; MISSION.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a Department of
Homeland Security, as an executive department of the United
States within the meaning of title 5, United States Code.
(b) Mission.--
(1) In general.--The primary mission of the Department is
to--
(A) prevent terrorist attacks within the United States;
(B) reduce the vulnerability of the United States to
terrorism;
(C) minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from
terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States;
(D) carry out all functions of entities transferred to the
Department, including by acting as a focal point regarding
natural and manmade crises and emergency planning;
(E) ensure that the functions of the agencies and
subdivisions within the Department that are not related
directly to securing the homeland are not diminished or
neglected except by a specific explicit Act of Congress;
(F) ensure that the overall economic security of the United
States is not diminished by efforts, activities, and programs
aimed at securing the homeland; and
(G) monitor connections between illegal drug trafficking
and terrorism, coordinate efforts to sever such connections,
and otherwise contribute to efforts to interdict illegal drug
trafficking.
(2) Responsibility for Investigating and Prosecuting
Terrorism.--Except as specifically provided by law with
respect to entities transferred to the Department under this
Act, primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting
acts of terrorism shall be vested not in the Department, but
rather in Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies
with jurisdiction over the acts in question.
SEC. 102. SECRETARY; FUNCTIONS.
(a) Secretary.--
(1) In general.--There is a Secretary of Homeland Security,
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate.
(2) Head of department.--The Secretary is the head of the
Department and shall have direction, authority, and control
over it.
(3) Functions vested in secretary.--All functions of all
officers, employees, and organizational units of the
Department are vested in the Secretary.
(b) Functions.--The Secretary--
(1) except as otherwise provided by this Act, may delegate
any of the Secretary's functions to any officer, employee, or
organizational unit of the Department;
(2) shall have the authority to make contracts, grants, and
cooperative agreements, and to enter into agreements with
other executive agencies, as may be necessary and proper to
carry out the Secretary's responsibilities under this Act or
otherwise provided by law; and
(3) shall take reasonable steps to ensure that information
systems and databases of the Department are compatible with
each other and with appropriate databases of other
Departments.
(c) Coordination With Non-Federal Entities.--With respect
to homeland security, the Secretary shall coordinate through
the Office of State and Local Coordination (established under
section 801) (including the provision of training and
equipment) with State and local government personnel,
agencies, and authorities, with the private sector, and with
other entities, including by--
(1) coordinating with State and local government personnel,
agencies, and authorities, and with the private sector, to
ensure adequate planning, equipment, training, and exercise
activities;
(2) coordinating and, as appropriate, consolidating, the
Federal Government's communications and systems of
communications relating to homeland security with State and
local government personnel, agencies, and authorities, the
private sector, other entities, and the public; and
(3) distributing or, as appropriate, coordinating the
distribution of, warnings and information to State and local
government personnel, agencies, and authorities and to the
public.
(d) Meetings of National Security Council.--The Secretary
may, subject to the direction of the President, attend and
participate in meetings of the National Security Council.
(e) Issuance of Regulations.--The issuance of regulations
by the Secretary shall be governed by the provisions of
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, except as
specifically provided in this Act, in laws granting
regulatory authorities that are transferred by this Act, and
in laws enacted after the date of enactment of this Act.
(f) Special Assistant to the Secretary.--The Secretary
shall appoint a Special Assistant to the Secretary who shall
be responsible for--
(1) creating and fostering strategic communications with
the private sector to enhance the primary mission of the
Department to protect the American homeland;
(2) advising the Secretary on the impact of the
Department's policies, regulations, processes, and actions on
the private sector;
(3) interfacing with other relevant Federal agencies with
homeland security missions to assess the impact of these
agencies' actions on the private sector;
(4) creating and managing private sector advisory councils
composed of representatives of industries and associations
designated by the Secretary to--
(A) advise the Secretary on private sector products,
applications, and solutions as they relate to homeland
security challenges; and
(B) advise the Secretary on homeland security policies,
regulations, processes, and actions that affect the
participating industries and associations;
(5) working with Federal laboratories, Federally funded
research and development centers, other Federally funded
organizations, academia, and the private sector to develop
innovative approaches to address homeland security challenges
to produce and deploy the best available technologies for
homeland security missions;
(6) promoting existing public-private partnerships and
developing new public-private partnerships to provide for
collaboration and mutual support to address homeland security
challenges; and
(7) assisting in the development and promotion of private
sector best practices to secure critical infrastructure.
(g) Standards Policy.--All standards activities of the
Department shall be conducted in accordance with section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of
1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) and Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-119.
SEC. 103. OTHER OFFICERS.
(a) Deputy Secretary; Under Secretaries.--There are the
following officers, appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate:
(1) A Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, who shall be
the Secretary's first assistant for purposes of subchapter
III of chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) An Under Secretary for Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection.
(3) An Under Secretary for Science and Technology.
(4) An Under Secretary for Border and Transportation
Security.
(5) An Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and
Response.
(6) A Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services.
(7) An Under Secretary for Management.
(8) Not more than 12 Assistant Secretaries.
(9) A General Counsel, who shall be the chief legal officer
of the department.
(b) Inspector General.--There is an Inspector General, who
shall be appointed as provided in section 3(a) of the
Inspector General Act of 1978.
(c) Commandant of the Coast Guard.--To assist the Secretary
in the performance of the Secretary's functions, there is a
Commandant of the Coast Guard, who shall be appointed as
provided in section 44 of title 14, United States Code, and
who shall report directly to the Secretary. In addition to
such duties as may be provided in this Act and as assigned to
the Commandant by the Secretary, the duties of the Commandant
shall include those required by section 2 of title 14, United
States Code.
(d) Other Officers.--To assist the Secretary in the
performance of the Secretary's functions, there are the
following officers, appointed by the President:
(1) A Director of the Secret Service.
(2) A Chief Information Officer.
(3) A Chief Human Capital Officer.
(4) A Chief Financial Officer.
(5) An Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
(e) Performance of Specific Functions.--Subject to the
provisions of this Act, every officer of the Department shall
perform the functions specified by law for the official's
office or prescribed by the Secretary.
[[Page S11466]]
TITLE II--INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
Subtitle A--Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection; Access to Information
SEC. 201. DIRECTORATE FOR INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION.
(a) Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.--
(1) In general.--There shall be in the Department a
Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection headed by an Under Secretary for Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, who shall be
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate.
(2) Responsibilities.--The Under Secretary shall assist the
Secretary in discharging the responsibilities assigned by the
Secretary.
(b) Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis; Assistant
Secretary for Infrastructure Protection.--
(1) Assistant secretary for information analysis.--There
shall be in the Department an Assistant Secretary for
Information Analysis, who shall be appointed by the
President.
(2) Assistant secretary for infrastructure protection.--
There shall be in the Department an Assistant Secretary for
Infrastructure Protection, who shall be appointed by the
President.
(3) Responsibilities.--The Assistant Secretary for
Information Analysis and the Assistant Secretary for
Infrastructure Protection shall assist the Under Secretary
for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection in
discharging the responsibilities of the Under Secretary under
this section.
(c) Discharge of Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection.--The Secretary shall ensure that the
responsibilities of the Department regarding information
analysis and infrastructure protection are carried out
through the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection.
(d) Responsibilities of Under Secretary.--Subject to the
direction and control of the Secretary, the responsibilities
of the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection shall be as follows:
(1) To access, receive, and analyze law enforcement
information, intelligence information, and other information
from agencies of the Federal Government, State and local
government agencies (including law enforcement agencies), and
private sector entities, and to integrate such information in
order to--
(A) identify and assess the nature and scope of terrorist
threats to the homeland;
(B) detect and identify threats of terrorism against the
United States; and
(C) understand such threats in light of actual and
potential vulnerabilities of the homeland.
(2) To carry out comprehensive assessments of the
vulnerabilities of the key resources and critical
infrastructure of the United States, including the
performance of risk assessments to determine the risks posed
by particular types of terrorist attacks within the United
States (including an assessment of the probability of success
of such attacks and the feasibility and potential efficacy of
various countermeasures to such attacks).
(3) To integrate relevant information, analyses, and
vulnerability assessments (whether such information,
analyses, or assessments are provided or produced by the
Department or others) in order to identify priorities for
protective and support measures by the Department, other
agencies of the Federal Government, State and local
government agencies and authorities, the private sector, and
other entities.
(4) To ensure, pursuant to section 202, the timely and
efficient access by the Department to all information
necessary to discharge the responsibilities under this
section, including obtaining such information from other
agencies of the Federal Government.
(5) To develop a comprehensive national plan for securing
the key resources and critical infrastructure of the United
States, including power production, generation, and
distribution systems, information technology and
telecommunications systems (including satellites), electronic
financial and property record storage and transmission
systems, emergency preparedness communications systems, and
the physical and technological assets that support such
systems.
(6) To recommend measures necessary to protect the key
resources and critical infrastructure of the United States in
coordination with other agencies of the Federal Government
and in cooperation with State and local government agencies
and authorities, the private sector, and other entities.
(7) To administer the Homeland Security Advisory System,
including--
(A) exercising primary responsibility for public advisories
related to threats to homeland security; and
(B) in coordination with other agencies of the Federal
Government, providing specific warning information, and
advice about appropriate protective measures and
countermeasures, to State and local government agencies and
authorities, the private sector, other entities, and the
public.
(8) To review, analyze, and make recommendations for
improvements in the policies and procedures governing the
sharing of law enforcement information, intelligence
information, intelligence-related information, and other
information relating to homeland security within the Federal
Government and between the Federal Government and State and
local government agencies and authorities.
(9) To disseminate, as appropriate, information analyzed by
the Department within the Department, to other agencies of
the Federal Government with responsibilities relating to
homeland security, and to agencies of State and local
governments and private sector entities with such
responsibilities in order to assist in the deterrence,
prevention, preemption of, or response to, terrorist attacks
against the United States.
(10) To consult with the Director of Central Intelligence
and other appropriate intelligence, law enforcement, or other
elements of the Federal Government to establish collection
priorities and strategies for information, including law
enforcement-related information, relating to threats of
terrorism against the United States through such means as the
representation of the Department in discussions regarding
requirements and priorities in the collection of such
information.
(11) To consult with State and local governments and
private sector entities to ensure appropriate exchanges of
information, including law enforcement-related information,
relating to threats of terrorism against the United States.
(12) To ensure that--
(A) any material received pursuant to this Act is protected
from unauthorized disclosure and handled and used only for
the performance of official duties; and
(B) any intelligence information under this Act is shared,
retained, and disseminated consistent with the authority of
the Director of Central Intelligence to protect intelligence
sources and methods under the National Security Act of 1947
(50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and related procedures and, as
appropriate, similar authorities of the Attorney General
concerning sensitive law enforcement information.
(13) To request additional information from other agencies
of the Federal Government, State and local government
agencies, and the private sector relating to threats of
terrorism in the United States, or relating to other areas of
responsibility assigned by the Secretary, including the entry
into cooperative agreements through the Secretary to obtain
such information.
(14) To establish and utilize, in conjunction with the
chief information officer of the Department, a secure
communications and information technology infrastructure,
including data-mining and other advanced analytical tools, in
order to access, receive, and analyze data and information in
furtherance of the responsibilities under this section, and
to disseminate information acquired and analyzed by the
Department, as appropriate.
(15) To ensure, in conjunction with the chief information
officer of the Department, that any information databases and
analytical tools developed or utilized by the Department--
(A) are compatible with one another and with relevant
information databases of other agencies of the Federal
Government; and
(B) treat information in such databases in a manner that
complies with applicable Federal law on privacy.
(16) To coordinate training and other support to the
elements and personnel of the Department, other agencies of
the Federal Government, and State and local governments that
provide information to the Department, or are consumers of
information provided by the Department, in order to
facilitate the identification and sharing of information
revealed in their ordinary duties and the optimal utilization
of information received from the Department.
(17) To coordinate with elements of the intelligence
community and with Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies, and the private sector, as appropriate.
(18) To provide intelligence and information analysis and
support to other elements of the Department.
(19) To perform such other duties relating to such
responsibilities as the Secretary may provide.
(e) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide the
Directorate with a staff of analysts having appropriate
expertise and experience to assist the Directorate in
discharging responsibilities under this section.
(2) Private sector analysts.--Analysts under this
subsection may include analysts from the private sector.
(3) Security clearances.--Analysts under this subsection
shall possess security clearances appropriate for their work
under this section.
(f) Detail of Personnel.--
(1) In general.--In order to assist the Directorate in
discharging responsibilities under this section, personnel of
the agencies referred to in paragraph (2) may be detailed to
the Department for the performance of analytic functions and
related duties.
(2) Covered agencies.--The agencies referred to in this
paragraph are as follows:
(A) The Department of State.
(B) The Central Intelligence Agency.
(C) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(D) The National Security Agency.
(E) The National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
(F) The Defense Intelligence Agency.
(G) Any other agency of the Federal Government that the
President considers appropriate.
(3) Cooperative agreements.--The Secretary and the head of
the agency concerned may enter into cooperative agreements
for the purpose of detailing personnel under this subsection.
(4) Basis.--The detail of personnel under this subsection
may be on a reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis.
(g) Functions Transferred.--In accordance with title XV,
there shall be transferred to the Secretary, for assignment
to the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection under this section, the functions,
personnel, assets, and liabilities of the following:
(1) The National Infrastructure Protection Center of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (other than the Computer
Investigations and Operations Section), including the
functions of the Attorney General relating thereto.
[[Page S11467]]
(2) The National Communications System of the Department of
Defense, including the functions of the Secretary of Defense
relating thereto.
(3) The Critical Infrastructure Assurance Offi |
Add to del.icio.us