Congressional Record: September 10, 2002 (Senate)
Page S8431-S8433
HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate resumes consideration of the
pending bill.
Mr. REID. Was there a unanimous consent request, Madam President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania asked for the
regular order.
Mr. REID. What is the regular order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill, H.R. 5005.
Mr. REID. If my friend would allow me to speak, it is my
understanding that we were in a period of morning business with
Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each. Would it not take
consent to get out of that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business occurs by consent. The
regular order was the legislation.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I think I have the floor. If I might
just comment, what I would like to do is speak on the bill.
Mr. REID. We would like to hear you speak. But I say to my friend,
there would be no amendments. We have the Thompson amendment pending,
and we would have to have consent to set that aside, or I guess you
could offer a second-degree to Senator Thompson's amendment. But you
are not planning to offer an amendment?
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I don't plan to offer any amendments or
anything unusual. I want to make some comments on the pending bill. I
don't plan to do anything that would require the presence of anybody
here to safeguard their interests. I don't wish to do anything that
would be construed as contrary to anybody's interest. I would like to
have people here who are on the bill.
Mr. REID. I only say I am sorry I have to leave the floor because I
would love to hear the statement of the Senator from Pennsylvania. I
say this as affirmatively and sincerely as possible. The Senator always
makes statements that are good and direct, and I am sorry to have
interrupted him, but I didn't know what was going on.
Mr. SPECTER. I am sorry the Senator from Nevada will not be here to
hear my presentation, but there are 97 other Senators who could come.
Counting the Presiding Officer and myself and the Senator from Nevada,
that leaves 97 others. That is probably more people than are watching
on C-SPAN 2, as a matter of fact, Madam President.
Amendment No. 4513
The pending amendment seeks to speak to the provisions of the bill
relating to a National Office for Combating Terrorism, and I believe
the thrust of the provisions for this national office are well founded
as a coordinating mechanism. But after discussing the matter in some
detail with the author of the bill, the distinguished senior Senator
from Florida, and considering the views of the President, who does not
want to have a confirmed officer in the West Wing but is looking for an
adviser, as former Governor Ridge who is now his adviser, as
Dr. Condoleezza Rice is the National Security Adviser--it seems to me
there are strong reasons for us to avoid this legislation to have a
Secretary of Homeland Security who will be confirmed and then have a
Director for the National Office for Combating Terrorism, because all
of these duties, in my opinion, can be handled by the Secretary of
Homeland Security. So the objectives which the senior Senator from
Florida seeks to accomplish can be accomplished without adding this
additional office. I know the President does not want another officer
confirmed by the Senate. He didn't want one in the first place, and
didn't want a Department of Homeland Security, but now has acceded.
Senator Lieberman and I introduced the legislation for a Department
of Homeland Security and a Secretary of Homeland Security last October,
and eventually the President acceded to that necessity, and there is
now a bill on the floor.
But as I look over the responsibilities which the senior Senator from
Florida has assigned to the Director of the National Office for
Combating Terrorism, it is my view that these duties can be handled by
the Secretary of Homeland Security. The responsibilities which are set
out in section 201(c):
To develop national objectives and policies for combating
terrorism.
I think that is an appropriate function for the Secretary.
To direct . . . [the] assessment of terrorist threats and
vulnerabilities to those threats . . . .
Again, I think that is something that can be handled by the
Secretary.
To coordinate . . . the implementation . . . of the
Strategy by agencies with responsibilities for combating
terrorism . . . .
Again, I think that is something the Secretary can do.
To work with agencies, including the Environmental
Protection Agency, to ensure that appropriate actions are
taken to address vulnerabilities identified by the
Directorate of Critical Infrastructure Protection within the
Department.
Again, that is something which the Secretary can handle.
To coordinate, with the advice of the Secretary, the
development of a comprehensive annual budget for the programs
and activities under the Strategy, including the budgets of
the military departments and agencies within the National
Foreign Intelligence Program relating to international
terrorism . . . .
That can be handled by the Secretary. In fact, this provision calls
for coordination with the Secretary.
The provision does exclude military programs, projects or activities
relating to force protection. This is a controversial item, as to
whether there ought to be somebody with budget authority. I think it is
a good idea. Right now there is diverse budget authority with a larger
share of it on the intelligence agencies coming out of the Department
of Defense. I believe it would be very useful to have that centralized.
When I chaired the Intelligence Committee in the 104th Congress, I
proposed legislation which would have brought all of the intelligence
agencies under one umbrella, the Central Intelligence Agency. Now I
think there is an opportunity to do that with the new Department of
Homeland Security since we are taking a fresh look at this area. I know
there are objections to giving budget authority to anyone on an overall
basis, but it would be my hope that this provision would stay--but it
would stay under the dominion of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
The other responsibilities of the Director of the National Office for
Combating Terrorism are:
To exercise funding authority for Federal terrorism
prevention and response agencies . . . .
Stated simply, all of the functions of the Director of the National
Office for Combating Terrorism, in my view, can be handled by the
Secretary of Homeland Security. I think those objectives are sound.
It is my hope that we will legislate here to put under the umbrella
of the Secretary of Homeland Security the necessary authority to
protect against terrorists. It is my judgment that had all of the dots
been under one umbrella, there would have been a veritable blueprint
for what happened on September 11 and that September 11 might well have
been prevented. This is the time, with the new Department of Homeland
Security to be established, that we have a chance to implement what so
many people have proposed.
My idea to bring all of the intelligence agencies under one umbrella
in the legislation, which I proposed in the 104th Congress when I
chaired the Intelligence Committee, is an idea which has been proposed
by many. At the moment, there is on the President's desk a
comprehensive proposal to accomplish just that. But the reality is that
the turf wars involving the various agencies are so fierce that this is
never accomplished. Now we have a chance to do it.
Had the one umbrella been present to identify the FBI Phoenix
memorandum--where there was a flight student with a big picture of
Osama bin Laden and indicators of potential terrorist activity--had
that, combined with the two men identified, who were later hijackers on
September 11, in Kuala Lumpur where the CIA never told the FBI or the
INS--had that been added to the records--the National Security Agency
got it on September 10; it wasn't translated as a threat that something
would happen the next day, perhaps later, until the 12th--especially
with the information which
[[Page S8432]]
could have been obtained, had a warrant been issued for the computer of
Zacarias Moussaoui and for the search of his premises--there was a
virtual treasure trove of information linking Moussaoui to al-Qaida.
We have learned a very different lesson from 9/11. Now is the time
for the Congress to change it. We simply have to override the various
Federal agencies that are fighting for their turf. The stakes now are
too serious.
We have an enormous responsibility in the Congress to do everything
we can to see to it that there is no recurrence of 9/11. We have action
to be taken if there is a biological attack. We have worked on various
antidotes for various biological weapons--smallpox and anthrax. But if
we have to respond, it is a 99 percent loss. What we have to do is
prevent it.
The intelligence agencies that want to maintain their own sovereignty
just ought to change that attitude. The legislation which has been
proposed would put all of these analysis sections under the Secretary
of Homeland Security. That is what ought to be done. That can be done
in this bill.
There was a meeting on July 31 with the President, Governor Ridge,
and Members of Congress, where we talked about these ideas.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed
in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Without objection, it
is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is a critical line on the letter I
have written to Governor Ridge. I will read just a little bit of it.
Dear Tom:
I was very pleased to hear the President's affirmative
response yesterday to the proposal to have analysts from
every intelligence agency (CIA, FBI, DIA, etc) under the
umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security with the
Secretary having the authority to direct those intelligence
agencies to supply his Department with the requisite
intelligence data.
This doesn't mean that Homeland Security will have
authority over CIA agents. They will remain with the CIA. It
doesn't mean the Secretary of Homeland Security would have
the direction of the FBI agents or any other agents. They
will all remain in their Departments. But the analysts will
all come together under one roof. There will be nothing to
stop the CIA from having analysts under the CIA roof. But
they will have to be CIA agents under the roof of the
Director of Homeland Security so that all of the analysts are
there and can put the dots together in one place.
The critical paragraph in the letter set forth is:
Responsibilities.--The Directorate of Intelligence . . . .
On behalf of the Secretary, subject to disapproval by the
President, directing the agencies described under subsection
(a)(1)(B) to provide intelligence information, analyses of
intelligence information and such other intelligence-related
information as the Directorate of Intelligence deems
necessary.
That is the critical part of it.
The other way of articulating the idea would be to say that the
President approves the Secretary having this authority. But it is
unrealistic to expect the President to come in and make an analysis and
take affirmative action. But it is effective to get the same job done
if the problem is sufficient to have the matter disapproved by the
President.
I don't think you really have to have statutory language because the
President directs anybody as he chooses. They are going to be bound to
carry out his orders. But this would give the Secretary of Homeland
Security umbrella authority, as I say, subject to disapproval of the
President.
Although I do think the senior Senator from Florida had a good idea
and purpose in the National Office for Combating Terrorism, the better
policy is to leave these responsibilities to the Secretary of Homeland
Security, a separate Department. The President is then free to have an
adviser on homeland security--as he currently does, a position filled
in the West Wing by Governor Ridge.
Exhibit I
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, August 1, 2002.
Hon. Tom Ridge,
Director of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
Dear Tom: I was very pleased to hear the President's
affirmative response yesterday to the proposal to have
analysts from every intelligence agency (CIA, FBI, DIA, etc.)
under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security
with the Secretary having the authority to direct those
intelligence agencies to supply his Department with the
requisite intelligence data.
As I said in the meeting in the Cabinet Room yesterday, I
think that had all of the intelligence information known
prior to September 11th been under one umbrella, the
terrorist attacks of September 11th might have been
prevented.
Senator Thompson, as I understood him, did not disagree
with that ultimate approach except to express the view that
he thought that changes in the structure of the intelligence
community should await further studies. My own strongly held
view is that we have a unique opportunity to make the changes
in the intelligence community now because of the imminent
terrorist threats; and, if we don't act now, we will go back
to business as usual.
As you and I discussed in our meeting of July 29, 2002,
there have been many proposals to place the intelligence
agencies under one umbrella, including legislation which I
introduced in 1996 when I chaired the Intelligence Committee,
and the current proposals which have been made by General
Scowcroft.
I suggest that Section 132(b) of the bill reported by the
Governmental Affairs Committee be modified by adding at the
beginning a new paragraph (1) to read as follows:
(b) Responsibilities:--The Directorate of Intelligence
shall be responsible for the following:
(1) On behalf of the Secretary, subject to disapproval by
the President, directing the agencies described under
subsection (a)(1)(B) to provide intelligence information,
analyses of intelligence information and such other
intelligence-related information as the Directorate of
Intelligence deems necessary.
I am sending copies of this letter to Senator Lieberman and
Senator Thompson so that we may all discuss these issues
further.
My best.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, while our troops have had
enormous success abroad, the war on terror, obviously, is not over. We
are just beginning. We must do everything we can to prevent future
attacks on the homeland.
Tomorrow is going to commemorate that awful experience. My attention
over the weekend was riveted to an article in one of the country's
major newspapers that reported on a debriefing of one of the al-Qaeda
detainees who had indicated that the fourth airplane, the one that
crashed in Pennsylvania, had as its target the U.S. Capitol.
How many of us on that day were working in the U.S. Capitol? I was in
a meeting on the west front of the Capitol, only 30 paces from where I
am now standing in the Chamber of the Senate. It was a meeting attended
by about 15, chaired by the majority leader. We had already seen the
television images of the World Trade Center, but we continued our
meeting.
Someone burst in the door and said: ``The Pentagon has been hit.'' We
leapt to the windows overlooking the west front of the Capitol,
overlooking the mall in the direction of the Pentagon, and saw the
black smoke rising on the other side of the Potomac.
Interestingly, my immediate reaction was to leap to a telephone to
try to get word to my wife, Grace. Only 5 days earlier, we had moved
into an apartment overlooking the southwest corner of the Pentagon. My
message to her was--and we didn't even have a telephone in the
apartment, since we had just moved in--to get into the basement garage
because, of course, I didn't know what was happening on that side of
the Potomac.
In the meantime, Grace Nelson is getting dressed in the apartment.
She hears the airplane. She said it sounded so loud, as if it was going
to hit the apartment. And the line of flight was very close to the
apartment. She heard the impact. She ran to the window and saw the
whole thing.
When she saw the people streaming out of the Pentagon, her immediate
response, which is the great patriotic instinct of my wife, was: What
can I do to go down and help those people?
That, of course, was a riveting experience, like any that you have
had in your adult life. I was in college at the time of the
assassination of President Kennedy. I can tell you exactly where I was
when we received the word. So, too, on any other tragic event, such as
the destruction of the space shuttle Challenger. And so, too, Americans
will remember exactly what they were doing and where they were at the
time of receiving the news that the Nation was under attack a year ago.
[[Page S8433]]
This war is going to be a long one, and it is going to be very
difficult because it is a new kind of war. We don't have the luxury we
have had for two centuries of two big oceans protecting us from our
enemies, for now the enemies have figured out a way to infiltrate
within. Of course, all of the U.S. interests and assets around the
world, including our ambassadors, are targets we have to protect.
It is appropriate that this legislation is being considered at this
time. What do we have to do to help protect future attacks on U.S.
soil?
Clearly, there was a colossal intelligence failure on September 11.
That is primarily what we need to address. The inexcusable bureaucratic
inefficiencies and inability of one hand of the bureaucracy to know
what the other hand was doing, all of that has to be ironed out. In the
briefings that we have had, I have some degree of confidence that it is
being ironed out. It better be. We have no choice. For the only way to
thwart the terrorists is to find out what they are going to do before
they do it and stop them.
Combining this new threat also requires a more agile government. What
we are about to do is undertake the largest governmental reorganization
in the last five decades. This new department will combine 22 agencies,
170,000 people, with an annual budget of $38 billion. But considering
the seriousness of the threat and the scope of the restructuring, I
must say that I am surprised by the administration's demands that this
new Department of Homeland Security be run with minimal accountability
to the American people, which includes accountability to this Congress.
There is something that we all swore to uphold when we took office:
the Constitution of the United States. The political geniuses who
gathered over 225 years ago fashioned a document that had checks and
balances so that power could not be concentrated in any one branch of
the Government.
So as we start to create this new, vast reorganization of the
executive branch, we have to make it accountable to the American people
by having it accountable to the Congress, with our oversight functions,
with our appropriations functions, with our authorization functions,
with all that has served this Nation so well since the beginning of our
constitutional government in 1789.
I am concerned and a little bit surprised that the administration
demands that they have it their way without the accountability, which
is the checks and balances of the Constitution, necessary to the
functioning of our constitutional government.
Many of us on both sides of the aisle believe this is an issue of
great importance, involving such a massive reorganization of the
Government that we must ensure that there are checks and balances. The
American people deserve to know how this new department will be managed
and how the resources allocated to the war on terror are going to be
used.
Transparency is essential to ensure that this new department is
working. I am not sure that is the message that has come from the
administration. It is going to be up to us, particularly those of us
who feel so strongly about this.
We have heard a number of people talk about the great leadership of
Senator Lieberman, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee,
and, clearly, the man who not only believes daily and recites daily the
U.S. Constitution but carries that Constitution with him wherever he
goes, a man who has been in Congress for over 50 years, Senator Byrd,
who has expressed his concerns. And there will be more, including mine
that I am registering today.
I am afraid that the administration's bill--which, in essence, is the
House of Representatives-passed bill--fails to adequately protect the
nonhomeland mission of the Coast Guard. Think of that. The Coast Guard
overseas a number of important maritime missions, which save countless
lives each year, including search-and-rescue operations, Marine safety,
and recreational boating safety initiatives.
Am I sensitive to this? You bet. Look how much coastline Florida has.
I have not actually measured it against the California coastline, but I
suspect ours is greater if not equal to the California coastline.
So is the search-and-rescue operation, Marine safety, recreational
boating safety--a non-homeland-defense mission of the Coast Guard--
important? Of course, but so is the Coast Guard's mission on law
enforcement, which includes drug interdiction, and alien migrant
interdiction, and general maritime law enforcement.
Would it not be nice if we in Florida were not sensitive, as we are,
to drug interdiction and to alien migrant interdiction? Waves of people
try to come to Florida's shores illegally--some with just cause, but of
which the Coast Guard plays a very important role. As resources are
transferred to the war on terror, we should not forget about protecting
people from the nonterrorist threats that can be harmful to our
communities.
The final plan to transfer the Coast Guard to a new Department must
ensure, in my judgment, that law enforcement safety and transportation
missions are not unreasonably compromised. That is why I think we have
to adopt the Senate language and protect it then in the conference
committee--ironing out the differences between the Senate and House
versions.
In addition--and very importantly--the administration's language in
the House bill completely undermines workers' rights. Guaranteeing the
basic civil service rights of people hired to keep us safe does not and
will not jeopardize national security.
What are we trying to protect? We are trying to protect the civil
service of this Federal Government from being politicized, which is the
reason why the Hatch Act was passed years ago, decades ago, saying that
there was going to be a barrier put up so that any administration,
after the Hatch Act, was not going to be able to use the Federal
bureaucracy for their political ends; thus, the Hatch Act was enacted.
What the administration's language does is take away those worker
rights, those basic civil service rights, and that is not healthy,
because it has been healthy, as we have seen how the Federal
bureaucracy operates under those protections in the Hatch Act.
The House bill would grant the President a blank check to take away
the civil service protections of nearly 170,000 employees of the new
agency. I don't think that is in the interest of the country. That is
not going to affect the national security. The vague authority granted
to the President would exempt employees from traditional labor laws if
he determined, without any explanation, that the workers' rights
somehow adversely affect the Department's homeland security mission.
That is not right for the workers of the new agency, and it is not
right for the country.
Finally, the administration bill hangs consumers out to dry by
limiting the liability of firms providing new antiterrorism
technologies and devices because damages caused by untested
technologies that fail to work would be restricted even in cases of
gross negligence in the manufacture of those new technologies and
equipment and apparatuses. This limited liability provision gives carte
blanche then to fly-by-night companies looking to profit from 9/11 by
selling products that, at best, do nothing and, at worst, could cause
direct harm. I don't think we want to hang those consumers out to dry--
indeed, much more than that, we don't want to harm those consumers.
As the clock ticks, the time becomes increasingly somber as we
reflect back on what we were doing 365 days ago, what happened to us
personally, and how we have changed not only as a nation but
individually. I think it is important for us to look at the big picture
and that as we fashion a bureaucratic response that is more flexible to
protect our homeland, we do so in a wise and cautious fashion.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________
