Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I want to say that it is because of the complexity of that chart that refers to the various agencies that have something to do with homeland security or the war against terrorism--you see the Department of State here, Director of Central Intelligence, the Department of Defense, it goes beyond just homeland security and security generally--it is that chart, with all its unconnected pieces, that has motivated our work on this bill. Take, for instance, all the agencies that have something to do with border security. As we heard testimony in our committee, you go to a point of entry into the United States of America, you have three or four Federal agencies. Each one of them has their own office. Each has their own telephones. They cannot communicate rapidly with one another. The same is true of critical infrastructure protection, of the capacity of Federal, State, and local agencies to work together on emergency response, if, God forbid, there is another terrorist attack. That is the whole purpose of the Department we brought forward. As I have said, you mentioned my use of the word ``pride.'' It is not so much personal. It is both for the committee, and it is not to ask colleagues to support our proposal because we reported it out. I think it is the best proposal we could make at this time. Therefore, it is the most responsive to the threat of terrorism and insecurity here at home. Is it perfect? No way. Would it benefit from amendment on the floor? It would and will. Will the Department, once it begins going, when we pass this, still require the oversight of Congress, working with the executive branch to make it work better and better? Yes, it will. My concern about the Senator's amendment is that it doesn't build on the work we have done. It eliminates it. In that sense, it does set up a procedure which really will delay the date by which we make--let me describe it this way--our first, best effort, which is what I believe our bipartisan committee proposal represents, to create a Department of Homeland Security which will close the vulnerabilities that those evil terrorists took advantage of on September 11. That is why I have my sense of urgency about it.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. The truth is, this was an important exchange, an important debate. It does put in clear focus and does give the Senate a decision to make about whether they are prepared to go ahead and adopt the amendment, the proposal the committee has brought out, or whether they want to basically take the superstructure, if I may use your word respectfully, and then come back to fill it in next year or the year after. It is not so bad to have a little emotion expressed on the floor of the Senate because we both feel strongly about our points of view. Hopefully, from that heat will come some light for all concerned. I am honored to have participated. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor. Senator Thompson has been waiting so patiently during this discussion. I regret he has left the floor. Pending his return, I yield the floor to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Responding to the Senator from Pennsylvania, this Senator does, indeed, believe too much time has elapsed already in better organizing the Federal Government to protect the security of the American people at home. In October of last year, I believe October 11, 2001, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and I introduced a proposal to create a Department of Homeland Security, very much similar to the proposal that is before the Senate, though it has been revised and improved as it has gone along the way. I have said it with some pride and gratitude that the President, when he made his proposal on June 6, took a lot from the work that our committee had done; I don't begrudge that because the President's endorsement of this proposal, which had been our committee's proposal, in fact, put it on the road to passage. I hope we can find a way to come to a consensus on the great majority of this bill which most Members agree on and get it passed and not let the relatively small number of issues that divide us stop us from doing that quickly.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to report that Senator Thompson and I have been working with various other Members of the Senate, and we have reached agreement on a series of amendments that both sides have cleared. Before I make the actual motion, I will indicate what they are. The first is amendment No. 4554 on behalf of Senators Sarbanes, Mikulski, Warner, and Allen, which would create within the Department of Homeland Security an office for national capital region coordination which would provide a single Federal point of contact to help integrate the plans and preparedness activities of the Federal agencies and entities in the District of Columbia with the efforts of State, local, and regional authorities in the Greater Washington area. The second amendment is No. 4599 on behalf of Senators Harkin and Lugar. This amendment more effectively transfers the border inspection functions of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to the new Department. Next is amendment No. 4623, which would, on behalf of Senator Thompson and myself, add the E-Government Act of 2002 to this legislation. This would give the Federal Government the tools and structure to reform its information technology systems, one of the greatest vulnerabilities of agencies now tasked with homeland security missions. This E-Government Act, I note for the record, was originally cosponsored by Senator Burns and many others. It is the result of months of productive negotiations with Senator Thompson and the administration. Next is amendment No. 4552 on behalf of Senators Clinton and Specter. This would require the Directorate of Critical Infrastructure Protection to assess the vulnerabilities of, identify priorities and support protective measures for and develop a comprehensive national plan to secure not only the critical infrastructure in the United States but also its key resources. This is an attempt to make clear that key resources include National Park sites identified by the Secretary of the Interior that are so universally recognized as symbols of the United States that they would likely or might possibly be identified as targets of terrorist attacks. Also, amendment No. 4588, on behalf of Senator Rockefeller, which consists of a series of technical changes to existing law to ensure that the Coast Guard members retain all of the benefits they are now entitled to under the Montgomery GI bill, once the Coast Guard is moved to the new Department. And finally, amendment No. 4563, on behalf of Senators Bayh, Shelby, and others, which would improve the protection of the Department of Defense storage depots for lethal chemical agents and munitions by strengthening temporary flight restrictions on the airspace near these depots. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider the following amendments: 4554, 4599, 4623, 4552, 4588, and 4563, and that Senator Thompson be added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 4623; that these amendments be considered and agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to make some additional comments regarding the inclusion of amendment number 4623 in this legislation. The E-Government Act of 2002 is vitally needed to enhance our homeland security, and is directly relevant to the goal of ensuring improved homeland security. The bipartisan bill, originally cosponsored by Senator Burns, is the result of months of productive negotiations with Senator Thompson and the administration. It passed the Senate as S. 803 by unanimous consent in June. The Committee on Governmental Affairs produced an extensive report, Report No. 107-174, to which I refer my colleagues for more information about the bill. The E-Government Act will give the Federal Government the tools and structure to transform its IT systems, one of the greatest vulnerabilities of agencies now tasked with homeland security missions. As we've seen through dozens of depressing revelations over the last year, we have a desperate need for more effective and systematic information sharing between agencies like the FBI, CIA, Department of State, the INS, and state and local authorities. The E-Government Act will help the federal government get that job done, by establishing more effective IT management, establishing mandates for action, and authorizing funding. The bill will also substantially enhance the ability of the Federal Government to quickly provide information and services to citizens to help them prepare for, and respond to, terrorism, natural disasters, and other homeland threats. In the hours and days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, Americans flooded Government's websites in record numbers, seeking information more targeted than what the media was providing: what was happening; how they should respond to protect themselves from possible future attacks; how they could help victims; and how people who were victims themselves could seek assistance. The E-Government Act will substantially enhance the ability of the Federal Government to quickly provide information and services to citizens to help them prepare for, and respond to, terrorism, natural disasters, and other homeland threats. Finally, the bill will make permanent the Thompson-Lieberman Government Information Security Reform Act, which is about to expire. Weak computer security has been a widespread problem in the Federal Government, with potentially devastating consequences. In response, the Senate passed this important information security legislation last Congress, but that legislation is scheduled to expire in November. I thank the Chair, Senator Thompson, staff, and all others who have cooperated to allow us to move forward with these amendments. Noting my friend and colleague on the floor whom we all welcome back to Washington after some surgery, he looks younger and more knowledgeable than ever, I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Well, as I read your amendment, in the Directorate of Border and Transportation Protection, what your amendment would do is first remove the definition of the mission of that directorate, and then it would eliminate all this underneath and say to the executive branch: Come back--incidentally, not by February 3, but not before February 3--and tell us what you want in this directorate. The same is true of the Critical Infrastructure Directorate or the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate. So everything below what I have called the attic is eliminated, and basically these are generals without soldiers. These are admirals without sailors. They are just the top executives, and they have to wait until the administration makes the recommendations--not before the dates which you have set, and until the Congress acts. And we know Congress has a lot of ways to not act, if it chooses not to. So the Senator may disagree with the structure, obviously. That is not only his right, I understand if he does, but this was our best judgment as to how to make homeland security work. I just say that I do believe your amendment takes the heart out of our recommendation and delays drastically the date by which we would have a Department of Homeland Security protecting the American people. That is why I oppose it.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Responding to the Senator from West Virginia, they are quite literally transferred--I mean, literally--in the legislation that we have put before you from our committee. Each one of these is spelled out and assigned to the particular directorate which the chart shows it is located under.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes. They are in fact created by title I. These are existing agencies that are brought from where they are now to be coordinated in the Department. The exception--

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, long before September 11, our committee had been interested in homeland security. In July of 2001, we held a hearing on FEMA's role on managing bioterrorist attacks. In July 2001, we had been studying whether our Government was adequately organized to protect critical infrastructure and, unrelated to the attacks, had scheduled a hearing on that subject for September 12. The day after the planes crashed into the Pentagon, the World Trade Center Towers and the field in Pennsylvania, that hearing was held in a context we never could have imagined. About a year ago, we began crafting the precursor of the legislation we are now considering. On October 11 of last year, Senator Specter and I introduced our bill to create a Cabinet-level Homeland Security Department. In May, we merged it with strong legislation that had been proposed in September by Senator Graham of Florida. And on May 22, we reported that legislation out of committee by a vote of 9 to 7. Since the President announced his support for a Department of Homeland Security on June 6, we have worked closely and collaboratively with committee chairs and ranking members, with fellow members of the Governmental Affairs Committee without regard to party, with experts in the field, and with the White House. We have incorporated bipartisan proposals for restructuring the INS and reforming the civil service system--the first proposed by Senators Kennedy and Brownback; the second proposed by Senators Akaka and Voinovich--drawing on years of effort to build a consensus on those key issues. All told, we held in our committee 18 hearings and heard from 85 witnesses on these issues. Every step of the way, we have been open to and accepted sensible compromises and incorporated new ideas recommended by people inside and outside the committee based on merits, based on the purpose of this legislation, based on the urgency post- September 11 of protecting the security of the American people. The bill that emerged from this process earned the strong bipartisan support of the Governmental Affairs Committee. In 2 days of work on July 24 and 25, we debated the legislation, we incorporated many amendments, and we endorsed it by a bipartisan vote of 12 to 5. In essence, this legislation--its core elements anyway--have now been approved twice by the Governmental Affairs Committee. That is not a hasty process. That is work that has been done by the committee over a long period of time. I must say, as I consider Senator Byrd's amendment, I am reacting as a proud chairman, one who has worked very hard with members of both parties in committee to bring forth this legislation. It is not perfect. It is open to amendment. Let the body have its will. But I ask Senator Byrd and any other Member of the Senate, chairman or ranking member, to think how they would react if, after having worked so hard on a piece of legislation that they believe is urgently needed in the interest of the security of the American people, they were faced with an amendment that took most of it out. It would be as if an appropriations subcommittee bill came to the floor and a Senator got up and kept the sum total but switched all the money around or, more relevant, said: A little bit at the top can be spent; the rest cannot be spent until the administration comes back next year and tells us how they want to spend it. If I am feeling deeply about this amendment, with all respect to its sponsor, it is because I feel deeply about the need for a Department of Homeland Security as soon as possible. Each directorate has taken shape over time as we proposed them to respond to the best evidence of what will work from experts and from colleagues. We began with a model that closely resembled what was proposed in the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security in the 21st century, which itself was the product of 3 years of work and the insight of many of the top national security minds in our Nation. That was our first framework. Then in the months that followed, we drew on the lessons learned from our hearings and from countless other reports and hearings and from additional hours of staff research on these issues to refine and improve the initial vision of the Department. We collaborated closely with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. And since June, when President Bush announced his support for this Department, we have worked with the White House in incorporating parts of its ideas into this proposal. Each directorate evolved as we tried to bring together just the right agencies and offices needed to counter the terrorist threat at home. That is why I say that the Byrd amendment is like a children's board game: When you hit a certain box, it says: Go back to the beginning and start again. That is awfully frustrating for Senator Thompson and me and other members of our committee who have worked so hard to put these directorates together. The directorate on border and transportation security, for example, started out with a blueprint very similar to that recommended by the Hart-Rudman Commission. It included the Coast Guard, Customs, and the Border Patrol. But over time, in our committee, we came to be educated and to a conclusion that the original proposal was not adequate, was not complete. We heard from experts that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, had a critical role at ports and borders and ought to be integrated with the other agencies. So we moved APHIS into the directorate. We were persuaded the entire INS should also be brought over to ensure ongoing coordination with all immigration and border activities and between immigration enforcement and services. So we brought INS into the new Department while subjecting it to the substantial bipartisan restructuring it desperately needed, according to the Kennedy-Brownback legislation, and giving it accountability--because most everybody agrees that the INS is an agency that is not functioning as we want it to--by placing it in its own directorate with direct access to the Secretary and the Under Secretary of the new Department. As another example, the directorate on emergency preparedness and response began, again, in accordance with the Hart-Rudman recommendations, with FEMA at its core. But over time, the directorate was expanded to include other vital offices with a central role in preparing for and responding to potential terrorist attacks: the Select Agent Registration Enforcement Program, which plays a central role in the wake of public health emergencies; the Strategic National Stockpile, the Office of Domestic Preparedness from the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Preparedness from the Department of Health and Human Services, and so on. Each addition was carefully considered and made in specific response to concerns raised by experts in the field to fill a demonstrated need in the new Department. Adoption of the Byrd amendment would extinguish all of that work and say: Let's start again. Consider the evolution of our new independent directorate of intelligence. We appreciated the attention paid to intelligence capabilities in the President's initial proposal, but working together with the chair and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Graham of Florida and Senator Shelby of Alabama, and Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, who made some very substantial contributions to this effort, we concluded we needed to go further to give the new Department the tools it needs to detect danger and prevent attacks against the homeland. Again, we were advised over and over again in our hearings that in this difficult, awful business of fighting terrorism, the best defense really is an offense, and the offense is intelligence, to know through our considerable intelligence community effort and our law enforcement effort, nationally, and at State, county, and local levels of government, to be able to gather all that information, put it together on that one proverbial board so the same sets of eyes see it and they have the capacity to see a pattern which will tell them a threat is coming, and that they will act, therefore, to stop that threat before it happens. Our colleagues on the Intelligence Committee have come to a point in their investigations of September 11 where they--I have not heard the results. Maybe they have not been published yet. There were some early suggestions of reports in the morning papers, but this afternoon there apparently has been a report on the gaps in the sharing of information, limited by old and no-longer-acceptable bureaucratic barriers. We created a division, a directorate of intelligence, not to collect more intelligence but to receive it from everybody, so that those eyes, which are the public's protectors, can look at the information so they will have the maximum opportunity to perceive threats before they occur and act offensively to stop them. Our proposal has already grown and adapted, therefore, over time to the best arguments and the best evidence. Of course, further refinement will be necessary as we go down the road, but I am deeply convinced that our committee has presented to the Senate a strong, workable structure, which is full of exactly the kinds of agencies and combinations the American people need to protect them. The frightful facts of September 11 tell us that our Government was not doing enough to protect the security of the American people, and the terror- ists took advantage of those vulnerabilities. It requires a Department of Homeland Security, up and running as quickly as possible, to close those gaps and eliminate those as a result of those vulnerabilities. A Member of the other body, Representative Thornberry, played a very active and supportive role in similar legislation. To his credit, in early 2001 he introduced his own legislation in the House creating a Department of Homeland Security, well before September 11, 2001. Congressman Thornberry testified before our committee on April 11 of this year, and he said to us: We must resist the temptation to study a problem, this problem, to death. I believe he is right. We have studied enough. We have deliberated enough. We have seen the consequences of our disorganization more graphically and horrifically than we ever could have imagined. Now we must turn our thoughts into action. In fact, in response to the suggestion that we are going too fast, I say just the opposite. We have already taken too long as a legislature to begin to fix these problems. We have been living with the threat of terrorism for years. The scale has never approached, of course, the horror of September 11, but there were those who warned us that day, September 11, was coming. We knew the collapse of the Soviet Union was coinciding with the rise of other enemies, including subnational enemies; that advanced technology would too easily fall into their hands. We knew they were plotting. We suffered deadly attacks, both at home and abroad. It is time now to act. If we wait to attempt reform any longer, if we delay, as this amendment would effectively do, I believe we will not have fulfilled our responsibility to the American people. The threat is not going to vanish overnight. It is not going to give us the time this amendment would require to contemplate perfect reforms. We have no choice but to balance this reorganization with the ongoing efforts to strengthen our homeland defense capabilities. The fact is the advances we have made since September 11 have been, in some senses, in spite of the system, not because of it, because the system remains terribly disorganized and inefficient. The fact is that we need to act now. That is why I oppose this amendment. We have taken a year to deliberate and made dozens of difficult decisions about what kind of department we want to create. This debate has been productive thus far on the committee's proposal overall. I am pleased the majority leader filed a cloture petition yesterday which will ripen tomorrow, because it is time to begin to narrow the debate--not to close it off but to narrow it--so we can see an end point by which this body can act. This amendment would force us to start again, forcing us to revisit every arduous decision we have already made without a clear end date by which the American people could have some sense of security that a Department would be up and working to protect their security. Last year, former Senator Hart, who worked with former Senator Rudman, was so instrumental in our committee's proposal and the White House proposal. I heard Senator Byrd refer to those four men who were sitting in the basement of the White House secretly crafting the President's proposal. I apologize for the immodesty of this, but I do so on behalf of our committee. When one looks at the product of their labor, the better part of it--that is to say volume, the larger part of it--is taken from the bipartisan work done by the Hart-Rudman Commission and then by our committee. Senator Hart told our committee in a hearing we held: This is a daunting task. But we owe it to our children to begin. It would be a mistake of historic proportions to believe that protection must await retribution, that prevention of the next attack must await punishment for the last. We can and must do both. For like death itself, no man knoweth the day when he will be held accountable and none of us knows how quickly the next blow will be delivered. I believe it will be sooner rather than later. And we are still not prepared. I agree with every word. I say to the occupant of the chair, Senator Hart's comments not only show he bears the marks of a good law school education but he also went to Yale Divinity School for a period of time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to speak against the amendment which the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has offered. I do so, of course, with great respect for him personally, for his record of service to our country, for his record of leadership in the Senate, and for all that this Senator--and I would say every Senator--learns from him just about every day here. I rise to speak against the amendment. I am going to try to speak clearly about why I feel so strongly against this amendment, but I certainly hope the Senator from West Virginia will understand, and colleagues as well, that I do it with great respect. Senator Byrd has been good enough to express his appreciation for many parts of the amendment which is the proposal that emerged from the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which I am privileged to chair, by a 12-to-5 bipartisan vote at the end of July. I appreciate those kind words. But I must say that though Senator Byrd has said his intentions are not adversarial to the committee-reported proposal for a Department of Homeland Security, it seems to me that adoption of Senator Byrd's amendment would eviscerate our proposal. It would, as he has described it, create a superstructure, a kind of house--create the exterior of the house--but there would not be much in the house. There might be an attic, with the Secretary and some of the executives up there, but nothing underneath for at least a year, and probably well beyond that, to better protect the security of the American people here at home. So this amendment, though it preserves the superstructure, strikes at the heart of what the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee has been working to bring forth for well over a year now. We began our investigations on the problem of homeland security before September 11 of last year. We held hearings on matters related to homeland security before September 11. In fact, we had a hearing scheduled for September 12 on one aspect of homeland security, and we went forward with it as best we could. Half the witnesses could not make it to Washington. We labored, in the weeks and months after September 11, holding 18 different hearings. In October, Senator Specter and I, introduced--in October of 2001, almost a year ago--legislation to create a Department of Homeland Security. In fairness, that legislation was based, in good part, on the work of a citizens' commission headed by our former colleagues Gary Hart and Warren Rudman. And they had been working on it since the early part of 2000. In May of this year, our committee reported that bill that Senator Specter and I had introduced, together with a companion bill Senator Graham had introduced, amended and approved by the committee itself by a 9-to-7 vote--unfortunately, a vote on partisan lines. All the Democratic members voted for the bill. All the Republican members, at that time, voted against it. In June of this year--June 6, I believe it was--President Bush, after all the months before then in which the President and his administration had said an Office of Homeland Security, as filled by Governor Ridge, was enough to deal with the new challenges of homeland security--changed his mind. And I admire him for that, and I appreciate that. And I think he reached a conclusion that it would take more than an office--without statutory power, without budget authority--to meet the challenge that terrorists placed on his shoulders, and ours, to protect the security of the American people. My friend and distinguished colleague from West Virginia said the President pulled this bill out of a hat. Well, if he pulled it out of a hat, it was a hat that belonged to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee because so much of the proposal that the President ultimately made is exactly the same as the bill that was reported out of our committee in May. That is why I have said, all along, that probably 90 percent of the various proposals here--the committee proposal, the President's proposal--are in agreement with one another. And we are arguing over a small number of issues, not insignificant issues, but relatively small in number compared to all we agree on. We worked to take some of the ideas the President had and added them to our bill. Still, it is mostly the same bill as our committee reported out at the end of May. Then at the end of July--July 24 and 25--we had two very productive, extensive days of committee deliberation, a so-called markup, in which we were quite open to suggestions that had been made by Members of the Senate. I myself consulted with the various chairmen of relevant committees. Senator Thompson spoke to the ranking minority members, ranking Republicans on the committees. We built a better package and reported it out on July 25. Not perfect. As the Senator from West Virginia quite accurately says, no legislation that is brought before this Senate is perfect; it always can stand amendment, including this proposal. But I must say again, with all respect, that the Byrd amendment would basically pull out of the bill most of the hard work our committee has done. It would again frame questions that our committee has worked now almost a year to answer and has presented to the Senate our best considered judgment about what the answers to those questions should be. And the basic question is, How can we best protect the security of the American people after September 11 against terrorism and threats to their security? Senator Byrd's amendment reminds me of those board games I played as a child, and sometimes occasionally still do with children or grandchildren, where, when you hit a certain box, they tell you to go back to the beginning and start all over again. That is what adoption of this amendment would do. It would obviate all the work we have done. It would essentially say that the answers we came up with were not adequate. And it would establish a system where the administration, over the next year, would basically try to fill a house that is now empty in the Byrd amendment. Underneath the attic, where the Secretary and a few of the executives are, there is nothing to protect the security of the American people. The administration would be required to submit--beginning early in February of next year, and every 4 months thereafter--proposals for filling in that structure. But the requirements of the Byrd amendment say that not earlier than February 3 of next year, and succeeding 120 days thereafter, would the administration be able to submit the inner workings of the Department. And there is no clear time limit as to when this Department would be up and running. I gather that the Senator has modified or will modify his amendment to say that Congress must act on the administration's proposals for what will happen in five of the six divisions of the Department by 13 months after the effective date of the underlying legislation-- that date chosen, I presume, 13 months, because our legislation says that the full Department must be up and running 13 months after the effective date. The passage of the Byrd amendment would give the American people no guarantee that they would have a Department of Homeland Security, protecting them better than we protected them on September 11, in any time that is measurable. I have a personal sense of urgency. Senator Byrd has spoken to it. We want to better protect the security of the American people. This is an important assignment we have taken on to create this Department. But this is an assignment that comes with a sense of urgency. The terrorists are out there. We read every day about it, either about apprehensions or arrests of terrorists in various parts of the world. As I have said before on the floor, we defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan. We disrupted the al-Qaida bases there. But so many of them fled, and they are out there. They are not an army that we can see as a conventional army on battlefields. They are not in ships that we can observe at sea. They are hiding in the shadows of this world, in foreign countries, in our country. That is why I say that every day we go without a better organization of the various critical departments that are supposed to be protecting the homeland security of the American people is a day of greater danger for the people. It is with that sense of urgency that our committee has brought forward our proposal. And this amendment, if passed, would take the heart out of the proposal and delay its implementation to a day that cannot be measured. That is wrong. I oppose the amendment with the greatest respect but with the greatest sincerity and intensity. I ask my colleagues, any of whom are thinking about voting for this amendment, to explain on the floor and to their constituents how they could support this amendment and still say they are committed to the creation of a Department of Homeland Security with a sense of urgency that the reality of the terrorist threat requires. This amendment would establish a Department of Homeland Security and a Secretary with the missions and responsibilities virtually untouched. It would also retain the basic administrative structure of the Department, as the Governmental Affairs Committee proposal has proposed. The amendment also creates the same six directorates as in our bill, each to be headed by an Under Secretary. But as I have said, there is nothing else in this amendment within five of those six directorates. The one exception is the Immigration and Naturalization Service directorate. There are no responsibilities, no mission statements effectively, no transferred agencies. The amendment does call, as I have said, for the Secretary of the new Department to submit to Congress, over the course of the next year, a series of legislative proposals to further the mission of the Department, including recommendations for the transfer of ``authorities, functions, personnel, assets, agencies, or entities into the various directorates.'' These proposals to be provided to the Congress by the Secretary would be responsible for filling in the house. That includes not only the precise list of agencies and programs to be transferred to the new Department but an enumeration of all the responsibilities of the new Department, including the fundamental policy decisions about the Department's most basic missions. I have talked about the deadline for Congress to act. It is unusual, I say with some humility, for one Congress to attempt to bind another Congress to act. Is it enforceable? Can we have any sense of assurance, if the Byrd amendment passed, that Congress would act on the various proposals of the President 13 months after the effective day, which would probably take us to 2004? I don't see that in this amendment. Remember, in the underlying committee proposal, the Department is created. The effective date of the legislation begins 30 days after it is signed and becomes effective. The Department begins to take shape. The administration then has 12 months after that to complete the full implementation of the new Department, to bring all the 170,000 employees together to get the Department up and running, to overcome the inefficiencies, to bridge the gaps that exist, to create the new divisions of this Department that we desperately need. As to intelligence, for instance, there is still no place in our Federal Government where all the proverbial dots are connected from law enforcement and intelligence. That is an urgent need we have. If the committee's proposal is adopted, the new Secretary of Homeland Security would be authorized to do that immediately. All we say is by the expiration of 12 months from the effective date of the legislation; therefore, 13 months after the President's signature, all of this would be completed. Set that aside from what would happen in the case of the Byrd amendment, in which the only guarantee we have is essentially a hope that Congress will have acted on the administration's proposals 13 months after the Department is created. That is just not enough. This is no time for us to replace the carefully considered bipartisan legislation that emerged from our committee with this structure without content that may never turn into a genuine Homeland Security Department, with the power, the personnel, and the resources it needs to protect the American people from terrorism.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will come back and check the exact--

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for the suggestions because I thought they had great merit. I just want to say this is a chart which describes who is under there. As I said in my remarks, we worked real hard on this. Under the Directorate of Border and Transportation Protection, the Customs Service; Animal, Plant and Health Inspection Service from the Department of Agriculture; the Transportation Security Administration; the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center--these are people we trust. You and I agree these are people the administration seems to want to deprive of some of their existing civil service protections.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Well, responding to the Senator from West Virginia, the authority we would give to this administration if--and I hope when--we adopt a bill creating a Department of Homeland Security is no different than Congress gave, I believe it was, the Carter administration during which the Department of Energy was created. It created the Department and gave President Carter and his administration the opportunity to administer it. We maintain the power of appropriations and oversight. That is exactly what we would be doing here as a result of suggestions made by the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Alaska to our committee and components we included at their suggestion in our committee proposal. We have rejected attempts by the administration to have more authority over appropriations and reorganization. So I wanted to just say--

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, responding to the Senator from West Virginia, I thank him for his trust that we will be able to get the work done next year. But the Senator from Connecticut believes that the committee I am privileged to chair has gotten the work done, and that is what we have presented to the Senate. The Senator's amendment would not expedite our work. It would in fact block it. It would stop it from implementation. It would extinguish all we have done in these five areas. I said in my earlier remarks that the committee and I certainly have no claim to perfection. Amendments are in order. As the Senator from West Virginia has said, it is the greatness of this body. And the Senator obviously has a right to submit the amendment that he has, and I respect him. I have a responsibility to my constituents, to my committee, and to my conscience to describe it. With all respect, it appears to me to be an evisceration of what our committee has done. One might just as well vote against the committee's proposal to support the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia. That is how conclusive I think it is. As I have said, it sort of builds that structure and has a few people up in the attic but nobody underneath really working. A few people in the attic are the Secretary and the Under Secretary, but nobody underneath.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. As I have heard the Senator read this last section from his amendment, it seems to me that what it requires is that Congress finish its action on proposals made by the administration, fill in the blanks in the five directorates within 13 months--not that they would actually be up and running--whereas the underlying committee proposal requires that the full Department be implemented no later than 13 months after the President signs. And presumably substantial chunks of it would be implemented before. My fear, naturally, is that not only has the Senator, I repeat, taken the heart out of our proposal but that there is no clear date in the Senator's amendment by which Members of the Senate or the American people can have confidence that there will actually be a Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Responding to the Senator from Pennsylvania, the Senator is absolutely right. The Senator from Pennsylvania has been a leader in congressional involvement and oversight of intelligence, I believe serving as chairman of the Intelligence Committee for a period of time. Again here he was very constructive and helpful in this committee's creation of the directorate of intelligence as we have created it. I have met, as have many Members of the Senate, as has the occupant of the chair, with families of people who were lost, who were killed on September 11. They ask the gnawing question, which we would ask if we were them, and we should ask ourselves: How could this have happened? How could September 11 have happened? And one of the most painful answers is that if we had our intelligence and law enforcement agencies better coordinated it might not have happened. The Senator from Pennsylvania spoke eloquently to that. The truth is, on September 11 there was no single place on which all the information would be brought together, from the intelligence community, from the law enforcement community. There is still no such place. So we remain more vulnerable than we should. This Department would create a director of intelligence that would do exactly that for the first time in our history. If we did nothing else with the Department--and the proposal does a lot else--that would be a substantial step forward in the protection of security of the American people. I thank the Senator both for his questions and for his very consequential contributions to this legislation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Florida and myself, I withdraw the pending amendment to the Thompson amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, our Nation has long prided itself on being the world's premier innovator of new ideas. Over the last two and a half centuries, the uniquely American willingness to experiment with novel concepts and to chart bold directions has placed us at the forefront of scientific and technological progress. Our ability to engage in scientific exploration and to marry research findings with the development of practical applications has, in turn, enabled us to set the benchmark on virtually every indicator of human progress, from longer lifespans, to higher standards of living, to unparalleled economic productivity. However, while past accomplishments may confer a present competitive advantage, it does not guarantee future success. We cannot afford to rest on our laurels in a world that is becoming increasingly characterized by the speed with which scientific paradigms shift and technological revolutions occur. In a global economy in which ideas and technology are the new currency, every new breakthrough represents an opportunity to claim, or, in our case, lose, global leadership. The emerging field of nanotechnology constitutes such an opportunity. It is not just any opportunity, however, but one whose magnitude and significance locates it on the scale of harnessing electricity, creating antibiotics, building computers, or wiring up the Internet. It is, in short, a new frontier in science and technology that has the potential to transform every aspect of our lives. Nanotechnology, in fact, may have even greater potential to affect the way we live since it has such broad prospective applications in so many different areas, from medicine, to electronics, to energy. Nanotechnology is what scientists and technologists often call an ``enabling'' technology, a tool that opens the door to new possibilities constrained only by physics and the limits of our imaginations. Yet, despite the enormous potential that nanotechnology offers, it is not an area in which we have assumed uncontested leadership. From an international prospective, the United States faces the danger of falling behind its Asian and European counterparts in supporting the pace of nanotechnological innovation. Other nations have grasped the fact that the first players to fully capitalize on the promise of nanotechnology have the potential to leap frog in productivity and precipitate a reshuffling in the economic, and perhaps aspects of the military, pecking order. Accordingly, they have undertaken substantial efforts to invest in nanotechnology research, and to accelerate technology transfer and commercialization. While our Nation certainly possesses the raw resources and talent to lead the world in developing this technology, it is also clear that a long-term focus and sustained commitment, as well as new collaborations between government, academia, and industry, will be needed to ensure our place at the head of the nanotechnological universe. This is why I am so proud today to join my colleague, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, in introducing the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. This Act will build on the efforts of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, NNI, which was started under President Clinton and has received continued support under President Bush, to establish a comprehensive, intelligently coordinated program for addressing the full spectrum of challenges confronting a successful national science and technology effort, including those related to funding, coordination, infrastructure development, technology transition, and social issues. I feel it is appropriate at this point to give credit to President Clinton for having the prescience and initiative of creating the NNI, and to applaud President Bush for expanding support for nanotechnology R&D from $270 million in FY 2000 to the $710 million targeted in his budget request for FY 2003. The NNI has been a key driver of nanotechnology in this country by bringing coherence and organization to what had previously been a scattered set of research programs within the federal government. It has, in no small part through the efforts of its spokespersons. Dr. Mike Roco and Dr. Jim Murday, achieved a higher profile for nanotechnology both within and outside the government, and gathered national attention to the importance of this field. The time is now ripe to elevate the U.S. nanotechnology efforts beyond the level of an Executive initiative. Funding for nanotechnology will soon reach $1 billion a year, and the NNI currently attempts to coordinate programs across a wide range of Federal agencies and departments. This level of funding and the coordination challenges that arise with so many diverse participants strongly recommend having a program based in statute, provided with greater support and coordination mechanisms, afforded a higher profile, and subjected to constructive Congressional oversight and support. Our bill closely tracks the recommendations of the National Research Council, NRC, which completed a thorough review of the NNI this past June. The NRC report stated how impressed the reviewers were with the leadership and multi-agency involvement of the NNI. Specifically, it commended the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology, NSET, subcommittee, which is the primary coordinating mechanisms of the NNI, as playing a key role in establishing research priorities, identifying Grand Challenges, and involving the U.S. scientific community in the NNI. To improve the NNI above its current level of success, the NRC made a number of recommendations. These recommendations have largely been incorporated into our bill, including establishing an independent advisory panel; emphasizing long-term goals; striking a balance between long-term and short-term research; supporting the development of research facilities, equipment, and instrumentation; creating special funding to support research that falls in the breach between agency missions and programs; promoting interdisciplinary research and research groups; facilitating technology transition and outreach to industry; conducting studies on the societal implications of nanotechnology, including those related to ethical, educational, legal, and workforce issues; and the development of metrics for measuring progress toward program goals. This legislation will also complement the provision that I authored in this year's Senate defense authorization bill, S. 2514, establishing a nanotechnology research and development program in the Department of Defense. If this provision is supported in conference, we will have matching pieces of legislation that will encompass and coordinate both civilian and defense nanotechnology programs, establishing a truly nationwide effort that leverages the expertise residing in every corner of our government. If history teaches us anything, it is that once the wheels of innovation have stopped and stagnation has set in, mediocrity will soon follow. Nowhere in the world are those wheels of innovation spinning more rapidly than in the area of nanotechnology. This legislation provides a strong foundation and comprehensive framework that elicits contributions from all three sectors of our society in pushing nanotechnology research and development to the next level. I look forward to supporting Senator Wyden in getting this important bill through the Congress, and encourage my colleagues to join us in setting the stage for U.S. economic growth over the next century.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, our Nation has long prided itself on being the world's premier innovator of new ideas. Over the last two and a half centuries, the uniquely American willingness to experiment with novel concepts and to chart bold directions has placed us at the forefront of scientific and technological progress. Our ability to engage in scientific exploration and to marry research findings with the development of practical applications has, in turn, enabled us to set the benchmark on virtually every indicator of human progress, from longer lifespans, to higher standards of living, to unparalleled economic productivity. However, while past accomplishments may confer a present competitive advantage, it does not guarantee future success. We cannot afford to rest on our laurels in a world that is becoming increasingly characterized by the speed with which scientific paradigms shift and technological revolutions occur. In a global economy in which ideas and technology are the new currency, every new breakthrough represents an opportunity to claim, or, in our case, lose, global leadership. The emerging field of nanotechnology constitutes such an opportunity. It is not just any opportunity, however, but one whose magnitude and significance locates it on the scale of harnessing electricity, creating antibiotics, building computers, or wiring up the Internet. It is, in short, a new frontier in science and technology that has the potential to transform every aspect of our lives. Nanotechnology, in fact, may have even greater potential to affect the way we live since it has such broad prospective applications in so many different areas, from medicine, to electronics, to energy. Nanotechnology is what scientists and technologists often call an ``enabling'' technology, a tool that opens the door to new possibilities constrained only by physics and the limits of our imaginations. Yet, despite the enormous potential that nanotechnology offers, it is not an area in which we have assumed uncontested leadership. From an international prospective, the United States faces the danger of falling behind its Asian and European counterparts in supporting the pace of nanotechnological innovation. Other nations have grasped the fact that the first players to fully capitalize on the promise of nanotechnology have the potential to leap frog in productivity and precipitate a reshuffling in the economic, and perhaps aspects of the military, pecking order. Accordingly, they have undertaken substantial efforts to invest in nanotechnology research, and to accelerate technology transfer and commercialization. While our Nation certainly possesses the raw resources and talent to lead the world in developing this technology, it is also clear that a long-term focus and sustained commitment, as well as new collaborations between government, academia, and industry, will be needed to ensure our place at the head of the nanotechnological universe. This is why I am so proud today to join my colleague, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, in introducing the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. This Act will build on the efforts of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, NNI, which was started under President Clinton and has received continued support under President Bush, to establish a comprehensive, intelligently coordinated program for addressing the full spectrum of challenges confronting a successful national science and technology effort, including those related to funding, coordination, infrastructure development, technology transition, and social issues. I feel it is appropriate at this point to give credit to President Clinton for having the prescience and initiative of creating the NNI, and to applaud President Bush for expanding support for nanotechnology R&D from $270 million in FY 2000 to the $710 million targeted in his budget request for FY 2003. The NNI has been a key driver of nanotechnology in this country by bringing coherence and organization to what had previously been a scattered set of research programs within the federal government. It has, in no small part through the efforts of its spokespersons. Dr. Mike Roco and Dr. Jim Murday, achieved a higher profile for nanotechnology both within and outside the government, and gathered national attention to the importance of this field. The time is now ripe to elevate the U.S. nanotechnology efforts beyond the level of an Executive initiative. Funding for nanotechnology will soon reach $1 billion a year, and the NNI currently attempts to coordinate programs across a wide range of Federal agencies and departments. This level of funding and the coordination challenges that arise with so many diverse participants strongly recommend having a program based in statute, provided with greater support and coordination mechanisms, afforded a higher profile, and subjected to constructive Congressional oversight and support. Our bill closely tracks the recommendations of the National Research Council, NRC, which completed a thorough review of the NNI this past June. The NRC report stated how impressed the reviewers were with the leadership and multi-agency involvement of the NNI. Specifically, it commended the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology, NSET, subcommittee, which is the primary coordinating mechanisms of the NNI, as playing a key role in establishing research priorities, identifying Grand Challenges, and involving the U.S. scientific community in the NNI. To improve the NNI above its current level of success, the NRC made a number of recommendations. These recommendations have largely been incorporated into our bill, including establishing an independent advisory panel; emphasizing long-term goals; striking a balance between long-term and short-term research; supporting the development of research facilities, equipment, and instrumentation; creating special funding to support research that falls in the breach between agency missions and programs; promoting interdisciplinary research and research groups; facilitating technology transition and outreach to industry; conducting studies on the societal implications of nanotechnology, including those related to ethical, educational, legal, and workforce issues; and the development of metrics for measuring progress toward program goals. This legislation will also complement the provision that I authored in this year's Senate defense authorization bill, S. 2514, establishing a nanotechnology research and development program in the Department of Defense. If this provision is supported in conference, we will have matching pieces of legislation that will encompass and coordinate both civilian and defense nanotechnology programs, establishing a truly nationwide effort that leverages the expertise residing in every corner of our government. If history teaches us anything, it is that once the wheels of innovation have stopped and stagnation has set in, mediocrity will soon follow. Nowhere in the world are those wheels of innovation spinning more rapidly than in the area of nanotechnology. This legislation provides a strong foundation and comprehensive framework that elicits contributions from all three sectors of our society in pushing nanotechnology research and development to the next level. I look forward to supporting Senator Wyden in getting this important bill through the Congress, and encourage my colleagues to join us in setting the stage for U.S. economic growth over the next century.