Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have three amendments. But I do not want to vote on my amendments in a stack. For my amendments, I want to have them voted on each after the debate on that particular amendment. I think that is the better way. I think whatever debate we can have on an amendment--I will say my amendment, and I have three--is fresh in the minds of those Senators who have been listening, or those who will listen, who are able to listen in their offices. I don't like stacked votes, as far as any amendments I have are concerned. Stacked votes may be for the convenience of Members, but, in my judgment, we are not here necessarily for the convenience of Members. We are here in this forum to debate and to act upon amendments that are in the interests of the Nation, as we see them. So for the information of the distinguished manager, I do have three amendments, but I want to call them up whenever I can have votes on them following the debate.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I say further, if I may, what I have said is no reflection on the distinguished manager of the bill. He has been an excellent chairman of this new subcommittee and this is the first time we have appropriated on a full bill for this new Department. The Senator from Mississippi could not have performed better. He has been very fair with the members of his subcommittee. He has always been very fair with me. What I have said is not to be taken as any reflection or criticism of him whatever. His work is trying to get this bill passed. As the co-manager, I am interested in moving it along, too. But speaking from a personal viewpoint--and I don't call up many amendments of my own--I want to state to the Senator and to all Senators, while they are thinking of stacking votes, I have three amendments that I don't want in a stack. I want to vote on them when we have completed our debate. I don't want any 2-minute summation between other rollcalls. I think we have fallen into a kind of slipshod way of acting in the Senate. This is no fault of the Senator from Mississippi. I am voicing my sentiments with respect to my own amendments. I don't think it is a very good way to legislate, to line up six or eight votes. Sometimes we fall into a vote-arama, where we have a good many amendments called up, debated, set aside, and voted on later in a stack, when those Senators who perhaps listened during the debate have gone on to other things and have lost their recollection of what was said in the debate. I think we ought to vote on amendments when we complete the debate. Perhaps that is not always practicable. I can understand that, having been a majority leader and having been a minority leader. I understand the practicalities of these things. But the ideal way to proceed is as I have suggested--with debate on an amendment and then a vote.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi uses an old phrase that I cut my teeth on when I worked in a meat shop back in the coal camps during the Great Depression. He speaks about this ``meat-ax'' approach--meat-ax. Meat-ax, my foot. Is this administration serious or is it not serious about homeland security? Is it serious or is it not serious? We have heard all this talk--or is it mere talk? Is it just rhetoric? Is it rhetoric without resources? Let me say again, Congress, the Senate, has asked the administration, the Department of Homeland Security, for a list of its vulnerabilities. How would it spend the $823 million? We say to the Secretary of Homeland Security: How are you going to expend the moneys? What are the vulnerabilities? Tell us. The moneys have been sitting there unspent for how long? Ten months? What are the vulnerabilities? Tell us. We are the elected representatives of the people. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security wasn't elected by anybody to the current position he holds. I have great respect for former Governor Ridge, but what are the vulnerabilities? Let us see your list. To date, no list. The Department has not responded. So we say: If you have $823 million sitting there, and we know that this Nation and its people cry out for security, we hear about al-Qaida being here and there, and about its being in Iran and about all the threats, the level of threats, we know about the code orange and code yellow and the code red--but no list. Where is the list? I think we have a right to say if you are not going to show us a list, we know there are vulnerabilities, and we propose to spend some money to meet those needs. The American people are busy. Those who have jobs are busy trying to put a little bread and butter on the table. They cannot read all of the news stories about budgetary problems and 302(b) allocations. They depend on us in the Senate. They depend on the Senator from Mississippi. They are depending on the Senator from West Virginia. They depend on the Senator from Kentucky who presides over the Senate at the moment. They depend on the Senator from New York and the Senator from Vermont. They think we ought to know. They think the Department of Homeland Security, which has been handed these responsibilities by the Congress, is taking care of everything. They think the Department is on top of the problem. They believe their homes are secure and their schools are secure. They believe the vulnerabilities that have been talked about are being taken care of. The American people go to their jobs every day and work hard. They return home in the evenings and read the newspapers. They watch the television news and talk with their families over the supper table. We still call it supper in West Virginia. They think all that is taken care of. Many of them rest easy because they think we are on the job, that we will do the job for them, and that we are looking out for them. We are not looking out for them. I say to you the Department will not respond to the Congress. Of course, it is not a surprise to me anymore because this administration looks upon the Congress with contempt--at least that is my perception-- with utter disdain. Those peons up there, they want to know what the vulnerabilities are. We will tell them when we get ready. Senator Stevens and I, upon more than one occasion in times gone by, have sought to add moneys to appropriations bills to meet the needs of the defense of this Nation and homeland security. The administration, with some apparent contempt, wrote us back on more than one occasion that the administration has everything well in hand. They don't need the extra moneys that you are wanting to provide. The administration is not ready for that. We will let you know. We on Mount Olympus from our ethereal atmosphere will one day let you know how much money we need, but not now. That is the contemptuous attitude some of those people downtown have. It is pretty clear from their letters and from the way they spurn the Congress and turn the back of their hand to the Congress. I say the American people ought not be misled. But they are being misled if they perceive and believe they are being protected, that we are on top of everything, and that the administration has its act together. They are wrong. Here is an amendment that would address the known vulnerabilities to the extent possible. I don't believe the American people ought to be misled. They ought to have a right to believe that we are attending to the gaps in their security. The distinguished Senator from Mississippi speaks about this $823 million that is there, and if we do this little amendment we will be in essence robbing the account or taking away from account moneys that the Department knows better how to spend. Even with the reduction in this amendment, the account is tripled over the fiscal year 2003 level. The chairman has called this amendment a meat-ax cut--meat ax. I bear a scar on my left thumb today put there by a meat ax. I know what a meat-ax cut is. A meat-ax cut in spending. Yes. The account would grow from approximately $180 million to $582 million. I don't see this as a meat ax cut. I don't see this as a cut. Securing our ports is important to our infrastructure by any definition. It is important to our infrastructure. How could we better spend that money? The money is lying there. It is not being spent. And the Department won't even tell us in the Senate what the priorities are, and how they would suggest those moneys be spent. This amendment defines the infrastructure investments that we know about and know must be made. I hope Senators will support this amendment. There is nothing political about this amendment. The money has been appropriated for infrastructure. The Department in charge of the expenditures of this money won't tell the Congress how the money should be spent or what the priorities are or how the Department sees those priorities or how the Department intends to spend the money or how the Department would propose this money be spent or what the vulnerabilities are. The Department won't tell us that. What are we to do? The American people think they are being secured. They are not. I hope Senators will support this amendment and spend the money where it will do the most good--on where we know there are vulnerabilities to the Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last November Congress enacted the largest reorganization of the Federal Government in half a century. At that time, the Senate was under extraordinary pressure to pass a bill quickly. The President traveled the country giving campaign speeches accusing the Senate of not caring about homeland security. The Senate responded by hastily approving the massive reorganization before Members had a chance to study the contents of the 484 pages that were dropped into our laps just a few days before the vote. There were a lot of items in that legislation that would not have survived scrutiny had the Senate spent more time debating the bill. A number of Senators objected to certain provisions in the bill and introduced amendments. But those amendments were never considered because the Senate voted to shut off debate. A good many Senators wanted to put the bill behind us even if it meant settling for a bill that needed more scrutiny. One of the imperfections that the Senate was willing to accept was the unprecedented secrecy that was given to the new Department of Homeland Security. Although the original version of the bill took a responsible, moderate approach to ensure public accountability, the final version that was dumped on the Senate gave the Department carte blanche to conduct its operations in secret. I filed amendments to scale back this excessive secrecy, as did several other Senators. But those amendments were never considered because, as I have already indicated, debate was shut off by cloture. Now we read in the papers that full advantage is being taken of the secrecy in the Department. Their friends and contributors in the private sector have a seat at the homeland security table. Corporate leaders and campaign contributors have been awarded coveted seats on the advisory committees that make policy recommendations to Secretary Ridge and to others in the Department. Consequently, not only do these companies have a direct role in shaping our homeland security policy, but they also have direct access to Department officials who award the private sector contracts for implementing those policies. Last month, for the first time, the Homeland Security Advisory Council met to provide advice and recommendations to the Homeland Security Secretary about this Nation's homeland security needs. It is my understanding Secretary Ridge took the opportunity to remind the council that the Homeland Security Department was soliciting a wide array of innovative counterterrorism technologies. ``There are several million dollars available to the private sector,'' Secretary Ridge said. That information no doubt would have been more than just passing interest to the members of the advisory council. With six CEOs and a member of the board of directors from three top companies, the Homeland Security Advisory Council represents some of the top business interests that are in competition for government contracts related to homeland security. It is worth noting that, according to the New York Daily News, of the 818 members chosen to sit on the advisory committee, 11 members have collectively given more than $200,000 in direct contributions to the Republican Party at a time when questions are already being raised about the propriety of former aides to Secretary Ridge lobbying a Homeland Security Department for Government grants. It is troubling that the Homeland Security Secretary would risk further damage to the Department's credibility by naming to advisory council representatives of top companies that are vying for homeland security contracts and grants. At a time when questions are being asked or raised about the preferential treatment given to major corporate campaign contributors in bidding on Government contracts, it is disconcerting that companies such as Dow Chemical, Eli Lilly, Conoco-Phillips, Black & Decker, Procter and Gamble, and Lockheed Martin are representatives serving on the advisory council. This volunteering by these companies of their CEOs and board members to serve on the advisory council may well be a selfless act of patriotism, but that does not stop them from profiting from the contracts and grants awarded by the Department. Eli Lilly used its connections to use a provision in the Homeland Security Act to shield vaccine makers from lawsuits relative to the use of thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative once added to childhood vaccines. Dow Chemical received $1.4 million in port security grants from the Homeland Security Department last spring. Lockheed Martin won a long-term contract to help modernize the Coast Guard, a contract that could be worth up to $17 billion. It also contracted to assist the Transportation Security Administration in developing CAPPS II, a controversial data tracking system that will reportedly collect information about nearly every adult American who buys an airline ticket. Despite the specter of the conflict of interest, and despite numerous warnings from Government watchdog groups, the advisory council has been exempted from public disclosure laws. The American people have no way of knowing what is being discussed or what advice is being recommended. There is no way to identify the financial interests of these council members in any advice or recommendations they may make to Secretary Ridge. With a $40 billion homeland security budget and the expectation that the Federal Government will spend hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming years on homeland defenses, corporate America is salivating over the money that is to be made from the grants and contracts being doled out by the Homeland Security Department. Also, being at the table when advice is given to the Homeland Security Secretary can be a very powerful tool. That is all the more reason the Congress should provide the American public with some kind of check to ensure that the advice being given to the Secretary is in the best interests of the Nation's defenses and not just in the best interests of companies soliciting a Government contract. I am concerned about the makeup of these advisory committees and how they are being used. We have no way of knowing what kind of recommendations these corporate CEOs are making to Secretary Ridge or what actions this Department is taking in response to those recommendations. We have no way of knowing whether there are real conflicts of interest when contracts are awarded to the same people who recommended the contracts in the first place. By requiring that the Department of Homeland Security comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, my amendment will ensure that Congress and the American people know how these advisory committees are being used. This law has served us well for over 30 years for advisory committees throughout the Federal Government. It includes long-accepted protections for sensitive information relating to law enforcement and national security, so there is no danger of disclosing information that would make our Nation more vulnerable. My amendment will require that the Department disclose basic facts about who is participating in these advisory committees and what kinds of recommendations are being made. The American people have a right to know that the Department of Homeland Security is acting in their best interests, not simply in the interests of any administration's friends in the private sector. This knowledge will strengthen our homeland security efforts, not weaken them, and will ensure public confidence in the policies that any administration--not only this one, but any future administration--chooses to follow. The safety of the American people is at stake. I believe the amendment will make the people safer and better informed. I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment. Mr. President, I call attention to the fact that the amendment is proposed by Mr. Byrd, for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Levin. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton's name be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. BYRD. I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BYRD. It has been cleared on this side, may I say to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1379

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared by the managers on both sides. It provides the Secretary of Homeland Security with flexibility in determining priorities for firefighting vehicles. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stevens of Alaska be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Landrieu, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. The amendment provides for a report from the Department of Homeland Security regarding radar coverage gaps at our Nation's borders. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it was just 1 year ago that the Senate was preparing to begin debate on the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. The September 11 attacks had occurred just 9 months earlier, and fear that more had to be done to protect the homeland pervaded. In that atmosphere, at a time when few wanted to look too closely at the fine print for fear of being labeled a stumbling block to the enhanced security of the American people, the administration pushed through a bill to create a huge new Federal department, the Department of Homeland Security. The budget for the Department of Homeland Security is $28.5 billion, a level well below that needed to meet the Nation's true and pervasive homeland security challenges. Billions of those dollars are up for grabs in that budget for entities outside the Department, and outside the Government. The administration repeatedly reminds the American people that the next terrorist attack could come any day, any time, anywhere. Do not think that companies have not noticed. The Department's budget is being eyed like a huge honey pot. Thousands of U.S. companies are reinventing themselves, repackaging products, rearranging priorities, renaming operations, and just plain salivating to cash in on what they hope will be hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending on domestic defense. Some companies would like to sell their wireless communications systems to Government emergency response agencies. Others are hoping to win a Government contract to produce an antidote for anthrax. Still others are pitching their software as an ideal tool for integrating sensitive computer systems in the defense community. One company is trying to persuade the Federal Government to buy its dial-up video technology to install onboard thousands of airplanes to monitor cabin security. One software giant has already sold its financial management software to the Transportation Security Administration. Go to the Washington Convention Center and one will find vice presidents of homeland security divisions standing in promotional booths describing homeland security technology that would be ideal for the Homeland Security Department. Publicly, the Homeland Security Department says it will judge businesses upon merit, but that is not stopping the more experienced insiders from quietly gobbling up contracts with the help of Washington's lobbying corps. The campaign finance research group PoliticalMoneyLine reported last spring that in early 2002 there were 157 companies registered to lobby on homeland security issues. By April 2003, the number had more than tripled to 569, and this month the New York Times reported that the number had grown to 799. A New York Times editorial read, in part, the big boom in lobbying in Washington in the past 18 months has been in the lucrative world of homeland security where the role of new registrants intent on selling the Government antiterror products and services has grown fivefold to 799 and counting. So lobbying firms are creating whole new departments for the sole purpose of lobbying for homeland security contracts. In fact, the homeland security lobbying industry has blossomed full flower. The spring rains have not had any impact on them. I failed to set out my tomato plants this year because of the heavy rains, but the rains have not stymied the growth of these lobbying activities. The Federal Homeland Security Department is still being stitched together while the homeland security lobbying industry has blossomed full flower. Among these lobbyists are a number of former aides to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge who are lobbying on behalf of companies seeking contracts with the new Department of Homeland Security. Last April, the New York Times reported that at least four of Secretary Ridge's senior deputies at the White House are working as homeland security lobbyists, as is his chief of staff from his days as the Governor of Pennsylvania. I ask unanimous consent that this article from the New York Times news service be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. BYRD. The Times article is dated April 29, 2003. I also ask unanimous consent that the New York Times editorial to which I earlier referred, dated July 8, 2003, be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

Mr. BYRD. Many Senators may not be surprised by these revelations. It is a well-established practice for former Government workers to lobby their old colleagues. What is alarming about this situation is how quickly Secretary Ridge's former aides stepped into new careers as domestic security lobbyists. Those very people responsible for setting up the Homeland Security Department are the first people standing in line with their hands out. These are the same people who argued so vociferously in favor of rolling back the civil service laws to allow contractors more access to Government work. They said that the new Secretary must have the flexibility to run the new Department, to hire and fire public servants, and now some of those same people are working for the very companies that are competing for homeland security contracts. The Homeland Security Secretary has promised to put into place strict ethical standards to make sure the agency's decisions are based on merit. I commend him for the promise but I am impatient for the follow- through. Chairman Cochran has taken the bold step of not earmarking first responder, science and technology and infrastructure funds for specific communities or specific technologies. This action places a great deal of discretion in the hands of the Secretary and his staff. We must make sure that in allocating the funds contained in this bill, that the decision making process is fair, even-handed and free of improper outside influence. So, I am offering an amendment to apply the same ethical post employment standards that apply to Senators and their senior staff to employees of the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Homeland Security within the White House. All employees who have an income of 75 percent or more of a level II of the Executive Schedule, which is comparable to a Senator's pay, would be prohibited from lobbying the Department of Homeland Security or the Office of Homeland Security for one year. An individual who violates this restriction would pay a civil penalty equal to 100 percent of all gross receipts received by the individual from the conduct that violated the restriction. The appearance of impropriety is enough to suggest that we cannot wait for Secretary Ridge to issue new ethics rules for his sprawling, young department. The administration has pinned the hopes of the American public on this new department being able to protect them from another terrorist attack, and even the appearance of a conflict of interest undermines the department's mission. We cannot afford to handicap this new department. I urge the adoption of my amendment. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times News Service, Apr. 29, 2003] From Ridge Aide to Security Lobbyist (By Philip Shenon) When Tom Ridge arrived here after the Sept. 11 attacks and opened the White House Office of Homeland Security, he quickly surrounded himself with a group of trusted deputies, many of them drawn from the staff he had assembled when he was governor of Pennsylvania. But when Ridge was sworn in this year as the first secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, many of his inner circle did not follow. They took a spin through Washington's revolving door, emerging as lobbyists whose corporate clients want contracts from Ridge's multibillion- dollar agency. Lobbying disclosure forms filed in Congress show that at least four of Ridge's deputies at the White House office are now working as ``homeland security'' lobbyists, as is a chief of staff from his days as Pennsylvania governor. They are a small part of a booming new lobbying business in Washington that is focused on helping large corporations get a share of the billions of dollars that will be spent by the vast domestic-security bureaucracy that Ridge oversees. Ridge and the Homeland Security Department, with a budget of about $40 billion this year, are obvious targets for an array of industries and their lobbyists in the capital. ``My one year is up, so I can lobby him and lobby the White House and lobby the Hill,'' said Rebecca Halkias, who was Ridge's legislative affairs director in the White House, referring to the one-year ban on contacts between former senior government officials and their colleagues. Halkias, who also managed Ridge's Washington office when he was governor, is now a partner in a lobbying company, C2 Group, and congressional filings show that her clients include Tyco electronics, which is eager to sell its wireless communications systems to government emergency-response agencies. ``I'm not really comfortable talking about homeland security lobbying,'' Halkias said in a brief telephone interview, declining to answer most questions. Asked if she was concerned about any conflict of interest in lobbying Ridge, she said, ``This conversation is over,'' and hung up. There is nothing unusual about former government workers lobbying their old colleagues. The surprising thing about Ridge's former aides is how quickly they chose to take up new careers as domestic-security lobbyists. Ridge's spokesmen at the Homeland Security Department said that he was giving no special attention to products that were being promoted by lobbyists who had worked for him at the White House or in Pennsylvania. The boom in domestic-security lobbying is viewed skeptically by government watchdog groups, which say they intend to monitor closely how the department spends its money and how Congress appropriates money to Ridge. ``Homeland Security appears to be viewed by the lobbying firms as a huge honey pot,'' said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a group that advocates restrictions on corporate lobbying.

Mr. BYRD. I concur with the remarks of the distinguished chairman and I support the interest of the Senator from Rhode Island in establishing an investigative presence in his State. There is no substitute for having investigators and special agents on the ground who are closely familiar with the ports of entry and organizations they are required to monitor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Secretary can, under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, exempt committees from notice rules in an emergency under existing law, whenever he determines it is necessary for national security. It is important that this amendment be adopted. We are not just talking about this administration. We are not just talking about this Secretary of the Department. We are saying that there should not be a blanket exemption available to any Secretary of this Department, when we keep in mind that from a national security standpoint, the Department is exempted, the President can exempt it, the Department head in this case can exempt it. But there are matters other than national security which are important and which are discussed by this Department. For the protection of the American people not only under this administration but also under other administrations that may come and may go, this amendment should be adopted. It is in the interest of the American people that they be protected and that we know that the American people know who is being asked to make recommendations, what recommendations are being made and whether those recommendations are in the interest of the American people. I hope the amendment will be adopted. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of it.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment by Mr. Durbin. I believe it has been cleared on the other side of the aisle. The manager will speak to that. I send to the desk the amendment.