Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes in this slot previously reserved for the Senator from Illinois and that Senator Durbin be recognized to speak in the next Democratic slot.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Madam President, it is truly an honor to have the opportunity to come and speak on the floor of the Senate today. This is one of those days when the Senate Chamber is really the people's forum, when the partisan or ideological or regional or whatever differences that sometimes separate us in votes fall aside and we stand here before the Chair, under the slogan that describes us--``E pluribus unum,'' ``Out of many, one''--and truly represent the common and shared values, hopes, and aspirations of our people. I am proud of what my colleagues have said thus far in this discussion and very grateful to be a part of it. In New York City today, they are reading the names of the victims, the names of 3,000 of God's children, magnificent in their characteristic American diversity, whose lives were savagely taken on September 11 of last year simply because they were American. None of us here can say anything as powerful or profound as the recitation of those names today. The Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and that field outside Shanksville, PA, will forever be hallowed battlegrounds, places where we will take our children to stand silently and contemplate their meaning, places of worship, really, where we will revere the lives lost and honor their place in our history. This morning, as I left the very moving and unifying commemorative rededication service at the Pentagon, I came across a family, and I said hello and shook their hands, and I realized these were survivors of a man killed in the Pentagon on September 11 of last year: A young boy about 10 or 12 years old, full of innocence and youth, a great looking kid, carrying an American flag in a case--I presume the flag that was either placed over his father's coffin or given to him in memory of his father--a woman, who was the wife of the deceased and his parents--strong American stock--a man wearing the cap of a veteran, tears under his eyes. And there it was: A son without a father, a woman without her husband, parents without their child. I was speechless. There was nothing I could say except to shake their hands and put my hands over my heart. In some ways, silence is a more appropriate response to the dreadful losses that were suffered on September 11. Silence, somehow, speaks more loudly to the horror and the complicated feelings that we all had on that day. Nevertheless, we must speak, to reflect on what happened that day, in the year that has passed, and to try to learn from that day and chart our way forward. Madam President, our enemies hoped that September 11, 2001, would be the first page of a new chapter in world history: The end of the American century; the end of America as we know it; the beginning of a civilizational conflict, based on theological differences, taken to an inhumane extreme, which would end in the victory of radical extreme Islam. As a distinguished Muslim citizen of Connecticut said yesterday at a public ceremony, al-Qaida hijacked his religion. In this the terrorists betrayed their ignorance, not just about Islam but about America; not just about the American people but American democracy and its values. I wish to speak for a moment about this conflict that September 11 has put us into and the differences between us and our enemies, which is what this is all about. This is not a simple struggle for power. This is a global conflict for values, for ideals. We are idealists. We and our many allies around the world, including so many millions in the Muslim world, believe in the inalienable and inviolable rights of every individual. Our enemies are craven cynics who desire raw power for themselves and seek to crush those who look or act or think differently. They claim to be religious, but how can they be religious and faithful in any way in which any of the world's religions understand it, if they are prepared to kill thousands of God's children allegedly in the name of God? We are different. We are optimists. We grant people liberty, not as the gift of politicians but as our Declaration of Independence says: As the endowment of our Creator. We have confidence that a society governed by its people will progress, and that is why we seek to open the world and broaden the community of nations living under democracy, as we have so magnificently since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Our enemies are not just pessimists; they are fatalists. They fear the voices of the people. They want to bring down a theological iron curtain to divide the world into acceptable and unacceptable people and nations and faiths, to those worthy of living and those targeted for death and domination. Third, we are skeptics in a very healthy way. We question one another and ourselves. We are proud of who we are but not so proud that we pretend to be without fault. Our enemies proceed with a chilling sense of certainty and an unwillingness to look at themselves in the mirror. It is those values that have guided us through our history and distinguish us now from our enemies. The men and women of our military performed brilliantly in unfamiliar territory against an unprecedented foe. Our police officers, firefighters, and other first responders have had reason to despair, but they have risen to the immense challenge and reminded us of what heroism they display every day. Every day Americans in our communities have had reason to lose faith and to turn from hope to fear, but they have not faltered. They have come together, finding our strength, not losing our optimism and our courage. Here in Congress, though we still have work to do, we have faced the new reality of the post-September 11 world. We have asked tough questions of ourselves. We have supported our President as Commander in Chief. We have realized that we have not been as prepared as we should have been on September 11 last year, and we are taking steps to close our vulnerabilities. As we do, we must remember that September 11 was not just a tragedy that happened. It was not just a natural disaster. It was an unnatural disaster, carried out as an intentional act by people who were evil. That is why, as Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post a while ago, we must understand this anniversary as more than a day of mourning and solemn remembrance. It must be not just a day of commemoration but a day of rededication. Charles Krauthammer wrote: We would pay such homage had the World Trade Center and the Pentagon collapsed in an earthquake. They did not. And because they did not, more is required than mere homage and respect. Not just sorrow, but renewed anger. Not just consolation, but renewed determination. . . . We will build beautiful memorials to those killed on September 11, but there are other memorials that we here in Congress can and must build: a Department of Homeland Security that does everything humanly possible to prevent anything such as September 11 from recurring, and it need not recur. We must support and encourage our military to search out and destroy or capture al-Qaida wherever they exist. We must reach out to the Muslim world, the great majority who are not fanatics or extremists, who suffer from a lack of freedom and a lack of material resources and hope, and offer them the support and the freedom that they desire and that is ultimately the best defense against the evil terrorism of the minority in the Islamic world that al-Qaida represents. As we approach the great debate in this Chamber on the questions around Saddam Hussein and Iraq, we must remember the lessons of September 11. As we look back, having heard the warnings of Osama bin Laden, having experienced the attack against the World Trade Center in 1993, against the two embassies in Africa, against the U.S.S. Cole, as we look back, don't we wish we had taken the kind of action we are taking today to destroy al-Qaida? In her foreword to ``At Home In The World,'' a collection of Daniel Pearl's writings in the Wall Street Journal, his widow Mariane Pearl wrote: The terrorists who killed Danny stood at the other extreme of what Danny represents. They could only wield their knife and cowardice against Danny's intellectual courage and bold spirit. Danny died holding only a pen. They stole his life but were unable to seize his soul. By killing Danny, terrorists took my life as well but could not lay claim to my spirit. We will never let them win. So, too, the terrorists may have killed 3,000 innocent Americans on September 11 of last year, but they will never lay claim to America's living spirit. We will never let them win. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Dodd's proposed amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, to reform and strengthen the Federal tribal recognition process for American Indian tribes and their governments. I am pleased to join with my respected colleague on this amendment, and concur with his sentiment that this amendment will further constructive dialogue on establishing a more fair and open Federal tribal recognition process. In 2001, I joined him in introducing S. 1392 and S. 1393, which were similarly designed to reform and improve the process by which the Federal Government recognizes the sovereign status of American Indian tribes and their tribal governments. The Federal tribal recognition process has greatly affected the State of Connecticut and its local municipalities from a financial and physical infrastructure standpoint. Connecticut is one of our nation's geographically smallest states. However, Connecticut already has three federally recognized tribes, one of which is being appealed, and nine more recognition petitions are in the Bureau of Indian Affairs pipeline. That is why Connecticut has been so keenly impacted by the federal recognition process. This Federal recognition process has been fraught with controversy. We shouldn't recognize additional tribes until the process is fixed and credibility in the BIA recognition process is reestablished. It is widely recognized that the process is both extremely lengthy and that towns and other interested parties feel that their views have been ignored. I want to stress that this amendment does nothing to affect already recognized Federal tribes or hinder their economic development plans. Nor does it change existing Federal tribal recognition laws. What this amendment does, consistent with those laws, is ensure that recognition criteria are satisfied and all affected parties, including affected towns, have a chance to fairly participate in the decision process. It assures a system of notice to affected parties; that relevant evidence from petitioners and interested parties, including neighboring towns, is properly considered; that a formal hearing may be requested, with an opportunity for witnesses to be called and with other due process procedures in place; that a transcript of the hearing is kept; that the evidence is sufficient to show that the petitioner meets the seven mandatory criteria in Federal regulations; and that a complete and detailed explanation of the final decision and findings of fact are published in the Federal Register. Under the amendment, funding available under the Interior Appropriations bill to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the recognition process becomes available when these fundamental due process procedures are implemented by the Secretary of Interior. The amendment dictates no outcomes, it simply tries to assure a fair process, accessible and more transparent to affected parties.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Tennessee, which would strike title II and title III, two very important pieces of our legislation; that is, the amendment that was passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee. I thank my friend and colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, not only for his eloquent statement in response to the introduction of the amendment by Senator Thompson, but for the considerable work he has done on this proposal for almost a year now building on work, as he said in his statement, that was done by other groups calling for such an office. It was bipartisan work, incidentally--including members of the other party here in the Senate. This work greatly influenced the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee as we put together the amendment that we bring before you. So I thank the Senator from Florida for his thoughtful leadership on this matter. This is not an amendment that strikes at the margins of our committee proposal. This is an amendment that really goes to one of the fundamental parts of the amendment that the Governmental Affairs Committee reported out in a bipartisan vote of 12 to 5. Look at the title of the amendment, the proposed bill: The National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act of 2002. It clearly is the intention of our committee not just to create a Department of Homeland Security, which is, of course critical, but to combat terrorism. Terrorism goes beyond homeland security. It goes beyond the Department of Homeland Security. We feel very strongly that it requires the kind of strong coordination that the National Office for Combating Terrorism would provide. We wrote these two titles, title II and title III that Senator Thompson's amendment would strike, into our bill because while the new Department of Homeland Security would be a critical advance in our efforts to combat terrorism by raising our guard, by defending ourselves, the American people here at home, it is obviously not all that is needed to rise to the challenge that our terrorist enemies have put before us. More than half the Members of the Senate were in New York Friday with more than half the Members of the House to meet in an unusual joint session to express our solidarity and respect and admiration to the people of New York, to honor those who were heroes that day, to mourn those who died that day, and to support their survivors. But also, I think, to rededicate ourselves to the war on terrorism so, as much as it is humanly possible, we believe that we have done everything we can to prevent another September 11 type of attack from occurring. I strongly believe for that to be so we need not only the Department of Homeland Security, but the office that this proposal would require because even after the Department is up and running, there are going to be many agencies and programs with key roles in the war on terrorism that would be outside the purview of the new Department. That is why we created this national office in the White House. The Director of the office, in my view, and I believe in the view of the majority on the committee, would be the primary architect of an antiterrorism multi-agency strategy working, of course, for the President because the Director is the appointee of the President. That strategy would include a host of components beyond homeland security-- some diplomatic, some financial, some military, some intelligence, some law enforcement. I think Senator Graham has listed the possibilities and the realities quite effectively. What we are saying is, what we need to prevent another September 11 from ever happening again is not just a new department to oversee the most critical aspects of homeland security, but a coordinator, a director working directly for the President, who has the real power and positioning to see the larger picture of the war against terrorism and to coordinate it in a very aggressive way for the President. We heard testimony at one of our Governmental Affairs Committee hearings--one of 18 we have held since September 11, 2001, from Ashton Carter, who was an Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration. I want to quote from him. Ash said: The announcement of an intention to create a cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security should in no way obscure the paramount need for a strong White House hand over all aspects of homeland security . . . The nation's capabilities for homeland security, even optimally coordinated, are simply not adequate to cope with 21st century terrorism. What is needed is far less a coordinator of what exists than an architect of the capabilities we need to build. I want to read from a few others who have both supported the creation of a new Department and a strong White House office. In July, the Brookings Institute issued a report called, ``Assessing the Department of Homeland Security.'' They say in that report: Whether Congress establishes the broad ranging department the Bush administration proposes or the more focused department we advocate-- That is the nonpartisan experts on this task force at Brookings-- there will remain a need for White-House coordination. By the administration's own reckoning, more than 100 U.S. government agencies are involved in the homeland security effort . . . There is a critical need to coordinate their actions with those of DHS and to develop and implement a government-wide homeland security strategy. Indeed [Brookings continued] it would be advisable to broaden the scope of the Office of Homeland Security to include overseeing the intersection between the U.S., domestic and overseas counter-terrorism activities. Under this arrangement, the Office of Homeland Security will likely only be able to perform its vital coordinating functions if Congress steps in and provides the homeland security office, council and director status in law. Which, parenthetically, I say, is exactly what our proposal would do. Going back to Brookings: Moreover, if the Office of Homeland Security and its director are to continue to have a major role in drawing up an integrated homeland security budget-- As was the case for Governor Ridge for the 2003 fiscal year request-- it is absolutely critical that the director not only have statutory authority but be accountable and answerable to Congress. I will read one more quote of GEN Barry McCaffrey, who testified before our committee on October 12 of 2001. Of course, General McCaffrey had been the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. He talked about the importance of the authority to review and certify budgets if we are going to have and implement a national strategy for combating terrorism. General McCaffrey said: A strategy without the resources is not worth the paper it is written on. The director of the Homeland Security Office needs the authority to independently decertify any agency budget that does not provide the resources needed to combat the threat of terrorism. He added: Not only are budget certification powers required to ensure sufficient resources, they also play a critical role in policy-making. The ability to decertify an agency's budget is the nuclear weapon of policymaking--it isn't something you can use often, but the mere fact that it is in your arsenal guarantees you are taken seriously. If you want to see another agency get with the program fast, just articulate the possible decertification of its budget. End of quote from General McCaffrey. It is a very important point. The reality is that President Bush has acknowledged the need for an ongoing White House coordinating office on homeland security and terrorism, saying he would retain the current office he established last October once the new Department is established. That is what the Thompson amendment seeks to achieve, preserving the status quo with respect to the powers of the Office of Homeland Security. But with all due respect, that would give us less than we need. We need an office that, of course, is accountable to the President, the President's appointee, but nonetheless can be an advocate within the councils of our Government to make antiterrorism a priority and, also, as General McCaffrey's words suggest, to create an incentive, because of the potential use of the power of decertification, for agencies not to slip back and underfund our antiterrorism effort, not to allow us to fall back into a slumber and make counterterrorism and antiterrorism a secondary or tertiary matter. This office, with the authority our bill gives it, through both budgetary authority and Senate confirmation, will have the power to be what we all need it to be. The President basically acknowledges the utility of continuing the office. The question is, Will it be a strong office or a weak office? I think the very reasons that convinced President Bush, contrary to his original position on this--and, of course, I am grateful for the change he made and I appreciate and admire him for making it--make the case for a strong White House office. He concluded that the original Office of Homeland Security was not enough to do the job that he wanted, as President, to have done because it did not have the power to do the job. Also, there are war stories you can hear from inside the councils of Government about various attempts Governor Ridge made to try to bring some coordination to the disparate agencies involved in homeland defense. For instance, there was a proposal on coordinating the border agencies, and it was knocked down from within the agencies themselves. Part of why, probably, those four men to whom Senator Byrd refers often, who gathered secretly to put together the administration's position or recommendation on the Department of Homeland Security, did so is that I think they--wisely, in this case--did not want to enter into a process preliminarily that would have allowed the bureaucracy to fight change, which was what Governor Ridge was facing. So I think the fact that the Governor hit a lot of roadblocks and speed bumps rather than paved stretches of road should convince us that a Senate-confirmed director of the White House office, exercising statutory powers, would have the clout he or she needs to accomplish what the President wants him or her to accomplish. Some argue, I know, that once we create the new Department, it will not really matter if the White House position is statutory and Senate confirmed. Certainly, I agree that even without a statutory and Senate- confirmed director of the White House office--which, again, we know will exist, in any case--the new Department of Homeland Security would be a vast improvement over what we have today. But it is still risky. It is inadequate to assume that, even with the new Department, we can afford to have anything less than the strong antiterrorism coordinating office in the White House that was conceived by Senator Graham and his cosponsors and adopted by our committee. As he has said, critical pieces of the antiterrorism effort cut across the Government and will not and cannot and should not be folded into the new Department even if it is well organized. Somebody needs to be looking at the big picture with a comprehensive sense of how every piece and element of the fight supports every other element, and then directly advising the President as to how the entire effort can be strategically integrated and implemented. The White House office can be a crucial complement to a line agency. It is not unprecedented for Congress to create such positions within the White House, as Senator Graham has said. Such legislatively created offices include the National Security Council; the U.S. Trade Representative, subject to confirmation; the Office of Drug Control Policy, of course, subject to confirmation by the Senate; and the Director of OMB, naturally subject to confirmation by the Senate. The complexity of orchestrating the fight against terrorism makes this mission, which will be central to our security for a good part of the years ahead of us, every bit as worthy of statutory status within the White House as those other missions fighting drugs, expanding and providing for fair trade, and coordinating management and budgeting. The White House office our legislation envisions would not be charged with homeland security per se, I want to make clear. Homeland security is the responsibility of the new Department. The White House office's job is to orchestrate and advise the President more broadly on the fight against terrorism. For instance, central questions that this office would consider, that will not come before the Department of Homeland Security or the Secretary, are: Are we doing enough to cut off the money supply of al-Qaida? And where might a new funding stream come from? Are our public diplomacy efforts, which are run through the State Department, complementing the other pieces, the military pieces, of the wider war against terrorism? How should our trade policies or our foreign aid policies be structured to be maximally effective in the fight against terrorism? Are there efforts that are duplicative or are there gaps between the various Departments beyond homeland security that need to be addressed? Those are central questions in the war against terrorism which will not come before or be decided by the Secretary of Homeland Security or all the agencies working under him or her. A lot of our antiterrorism effort was not well coordinated before September 11. That is a sad fact. As we approach the first September 11 since the dark day of September 11, 2001, it is critically important that we make sure our antiterrorism effort has learned all the painful lessons of last September 11. It is just unrealistic to think that a new Department alone will achieve that goal. We must still press for the most effective coordination and leadership we can achieve. I must say, we must do that for the longer term. I understand the President has strong feelings about this, but Congress has a responsibility to legislate for the longer term. As we all have agreed, the battle against terrorism is going to go on for the longer term, not just through this administration. And that really argues strongly for a statutory, Senate-confirmed position such as this bill would provide. I want to quote David Walker, the Comptroller General, who made this point when he testified before our committee in April. On that occasion, he called for support of a statutory, Senate-confirmed official to coordinate antiterrorism policy Government-wide. Comptroller General Walker stated: Bottom line, there is a clear correlation that to the extent that there is a significant responsibility that spans administrations and years, that involve significant sums of money, . . . Congress has historically sought to address those with a statutory basis and to head those offices or operations with a Presidential appointee subject to Senate confirmation. History has shown that those lead to . . . more effective and accountable activity. That is a critically important statement. We are legislating here for the long term. David Walker explains why the long-term interests of the security of the American people argue for this office as we have conceived it. Brookings Institution scholar Paul Light added at one of our hearings: Congress should establish a statutory foundation for the White House Office of Homeland Security. Such a foundation is essential for the strategy, authority, and, perhaps most importantly, accountability. Again, an important office. There is no sense in maintaining this office, as the President wants to do, unless it has an important role. If it has an important role, it ought to be subject to Senate confirmation and, therefore, accountable to the Congress as representatives of the people. Title III of the legislation calls for a comprehensive national strategy to combat terrorism to be developed collaboratively by the new Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the White House Office for Combating Terrorism. The Secretary will have the lead role in issues of border security, critical infrastructure protection, emergency preparation and response, and integration with State and local efforts. Those are the elements within the Department. But the Director will have overall responsibility for preparing the strategy and will take the lead on strategic planning concerning intelligence and military assets, for instance, law enforcement, and diplomacy. The idea is, the Director, working with the Secretary, will ensure the coordination of critical counterterrorism areas of Government outside the Secretary's direct control. And the legislation establishes an interagency council to be cochaired by the Secretary and Director to assist with preparation and implementation of the strategy. It very progressively establishes a nonpartisan nine-member panel of outside experts to provide an assessment of the terrorism strategy. This is similar to the national defense panel created in legislation that came out of the Senate Armed Services Committee, of which I am privileged to be a member, that, in 1999, assessed the first Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review for military planning, and did so with very productive results. In the area of antiterrorism, complacency has to be our constant concern. This panel our legislation creates will help assure an outsider-based, so-called red team critique of the strategy on a periodic basis. Under our legislation, this antiterrorism strategy would be updated on a regular basis. The President's recently completed and released homeland security strategy is a good, constructive beginning, but of course it does not obviate the need for more detailed and updated strategies in the years to come. I don't know if it is fair to quote a distinguished citizen from Tennessee when arguing against an amendment offered by the Senators from Tennessee, but I remember Fred Smith of FedEx said in a speech years ago, speaking to his employees--I paraphrase; I may not have it exactly--the journey to higher quality services has no final destination point. That is a good point because the journey goes on and on. We are constantly trying to improve. In that same sense, the need for constant review and revision of our antiterrorism efforts will have no end. We have to keep reviewing and being a step ahead of our enemies. I hope in the years to come and in future administrations, obviously, that terrorism is much less fresh in the minds and hearts and souls of the American people than it is less than a year after September 11. When it is, we need to ensure that, nonetheless, antiterrorism does not fall from the top of our concerns because these enemies of ours will still be out there in the shadows. This statutory proposal of ours seems to me to be one of the best ways we can guarantee steadfast attention to the terrorism threat from administration to administration, from generation to generation, as we go forward in this century. We have never before had to organize and implement both a concerted assault against terrorists and to mount a defense of our people here at home at the same time, following an attack of this kind against civilians, innocents, on our territory. It is unprecedented. Meeting the challenge means not only consolidating and organizing the dozens of agencies responsible for homeland security into a single unified chain of command, as we did in the first title of our bill, but it also means ensuring that the agencies and offices that remain outside the Department do not slip to the fringes of the fight against terrorism. That is what is achieved in titles II and III of the bill which Senator Thompson's amendment would strike. We need every gear of government turning in the right direction, supporting every other as far ahead as we can see, to maximize our antiterrorism strategy, to advance the President's vision and policies, and to provide, in this painfully new context, for the common defense. Therefore, I strongly oppose the Senator's amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for a characteristically learned statement, and also for the passion with which he has delivered it. He always informs this Senator and illuminates and informs the debate generally. I am very grateful to him. I share his wish that Senators will come to the floor and debate this amendment. This amendment really does, as I indicated earlier today, go to one of the pillars of the bill. It is not just a bill to create a Department of Homeland Security. It is a bill to create a Department of Homeland Security and Combat Terrorism. The strength and structure and authority and accountability of this White House office really will determine, in my view, how effectively we will be able to combat terrorism. Senators were here for a vote earlier today. As the Senator from West Virginia said, I know and respect the difficult schedules of Senators, but this is a very important amendment and I hope more Senators will come to the floor tomorrow. I believe it is the intention of the leadership to move to a vote on this amendment sometime tomorrow afternoon. There are many amendments filed by other Senators. This is the beginning of the second week on which we have been on this bill, though last week was a shortened week because of Labor Day at the beginning and our joint meeting in New York at the end. This bill deserves the involvement for which the Senator from West Virginia has called. I thank him for it. I echo it. We are going to keep moving forward. I thank Senator Thompson for putting forward a very consequential amendment which deserves the attention of all Members of the Senate. I appreciate what the Senator from West Virginia has said. There is a point of order that is appropriate here. He reserves the right, of course, to make that point, as others of us do, and I would like to counsel with him on this tomorrow as we go forward and also to engage the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, who was a major contributor and drafter of this particular part of the amendment we have put before the Senate. The bottom line is I want to thank the Senator for West Virginia for his commitment, his understanding of how significant this piece of legislation is, and the extent to which he has devoted his valuable time to studying the various proposals and then his valuable time to preparing the learned statements--I go back to that adjective--learned statements that he has already made in the 3 or 4 days we have been on the bill, on different parts of the bill. He sets a standard for the rest of us. I must say even when, as occasionally happens, I do not agree with him, I always benefit from his involvement and appreciate very much his extraordinary public service. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. That is true.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine and the Subcommittee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet on September 9, 2002, at 2:30 p.m. on freight and intermodal transportation.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Transportation, infrastructure, and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet jointly with the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Monday, September 9, 2002, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on freight and transportation issues. The hearing will be held in SR-253.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

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, I yield 2 minutes of my time to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to support this amendment, which would enable those we already entrust with our lives on airplanes--namely, pilots and flight attendants--to have the tools and the training they need to disable terrorists in the air. Since September 11th, we have taken many steps to make it safer to fly. For all the agency's troubles, the creation of the Transportation Safety Administration has been a step forward. Airlines themselves have beefed up their security. Airports like Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks, Connecticut--which I toured last month--have made very visible progress. And so much of this progress has resulted from better collaboration and cooperation, which bodes well for the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. But we still have a long way to go and a short time to get there. I was disturbed by an investigative report in yesterday's New York Daily News. Let me read you the opening: Carry-on bags concealing potentially deadly weapons. Six major airlines. Eleven airports. Fourteen flights. And not once did anyone catch on. To test the supposedly more stringent security imposed at the nation's airports after the Sept. 11 attacks, Daily News reporters boarded flights over the Labor Day weekend carrying contraband--including box cutters, razor knives and pepper spray. Not a single airport security checkpoint spotted or confiscated any of the dangerous items, all of which have been banned from airports and planes by federal authorities. Obviously we must fix these lapses without further delay. But at the same time, we have to realize no matter what security procedures we put in place on the ground, they won't be failsafe. We need a security network that's flexible enough to protect passengers from danger even if one link in the chain breaks down. The reality is, if a dangerous person has managed to get on a plane with a weapon or an explosive device, there is one last line of defense: the people on the plane. We need to make sure that last line of defense is a strong line of defense. Having our flight crew carry weapons has been carefully considered in both houses of Congress. We've thought through stun guns as an alternative, but it turns out they are unreliable, and the cockpit is too small to use them effectively. While potential concerns and complications about equipping pilots with firearms have been raised, in the end, this idea just makes sense. It is also important to note that this amendment provides much-needed training and communications capability for the cabin crew. These provisions will prepare flight attendants, who are often the first to encounter potential hijackers on a flight, to handle such threats. Flight attendants will also have improved communications with the cockpit in the event of an emergency. Besides the fact that firearms can actually give our flight crews a practical advantage over terrorists in the air--if it comes down to that--sending the message that the good guys will be armed gives us an important psychological advantage as well. The mere fact that a pilot or co-pilot could have a lethal weapon should be a powerful deterrent to would-be terrorists. We will never forget the heroism of the men and women on Flight 93 who resisted the highjackers and brought down that plane, which may well have been headed in our direction. It is in their spirit that this amendment should be considered. The flight crew isn't a passive target. It is an active force that can fight back against anyone who seeks to hijack a plane or use it as a weapon ever again. Of course we need to secure the cockpit door. Of course we need to make sure that the passengers are screened effectively for weapons. Of course we need to have high-quality, well-trained air marshals on our flights. But we should also take this sane, sensible step of training and equipping our flight crews, who we already entrust with our lives, with the tools they need to protect us. I strongly support this amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I want to speak in favor of the amendment that the Senator from Minnesota has introduced, which has been adopted, as amended. I want to say to him that not only do I support it personally, but as the manager of this bill and as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, from which the underlying bill has emerged, when we go into conference on this bill with the House, I will naturally have in mind not only my personal support of the Senator's amendment but the fact that the Senate has adopted the amendment by voice vote unanimously. I will be pledged to do everything I can to keep it in the ultimate conference report, particularly since the House has adopted a similar amendment. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on this. I think the Senator has done something that is important and that is just. He attached this to a bill on homeland security. But it responds to a broader problem. It does, in a sense, touch the same spirit of patriotism that we generally responded to after the events of September 11 which engendered the basic bill before us. It is this notion that a significant number of American businesses that have been born and grown up here, benefitted from all the opportunities that America provides, decided to wriggle their way out of the taxes and locate offshore to avoid paying taxes to the United States of America. This is just wrong. It is like so much else that is going on around it. Unfortunately, more than a few of our biggest companies have chosen to incorporate overseas and thereby avoid paying U.S. taxes. Evidently, these companies have asked themselves if it is legal instead of asking if it is right or wrong. They have had some lawyers or accountants tell them it is legal to do this. Legality isn't the only standard for what is right and wrong. It seems to me that a company that has grown up in America and that has benefitted from American workers and all that America does to create a climate for enterprise, economic growth, and markets for goods and services that are provided ought to, as an act of citizenship, even though it might not be illegal to go offshore, as an act of citizenship pay its fair share of taxes. My dad was a small businessman. He did well as he went along. I always remember, it makes me think that I was raised in an age longer ago than it was. In fact, my dad used to say: I never complain about paying taxes because the taxes I pay are the price I pay as a businessman for doing business in this country, for the extraordinary not only blessings of liberty that America gives, but as part of that, the blessings of economic opportunity that are allowed me--dad never went to college--to start this business and be able to make enough money to send my kids to college and graduate school. That ethic, which is still shared by the great majority of businesses in our country, including particularly, may I say, small businesses that don't have the wherewithal to kind of wriggle their way through the legal system, is not reflected as often in the actions that we have seen documented so well. I share the view of many of my colleagues that we should close the tax loophole to prevent companies from further irresponsible behavior. That is the most direct way to address the problem. But I also support this amendment, which sends a simple and profound message: if you don't want to participate as U.S. citizens and pay your fair share of taxes, then don't expect to make billions of dollars of profits from U.S. government contracts that are paid with the tax dollars of Americans who pay their fair share in taxes. My State of Connecticut has some recent history on this issue-- history with a happy ending--that I would like to relate to the Senate. Back in May, StanleyWorks, a proud company based in New Britain, wanted to pack its corporate bags and reconstitute in Bermuda. And not because its executives wanted to try driving on the left side of the road. It was because some of its leadership decided it would be nice to avoid paying taxes to the United States of America. It is sad and ironic, when you think about it. This company was founded in ``New Britain''--a name that calls to mind our roots as 13 colonies that broke away from the mother country because she tried to tax us from afar without giving us the rights, representation, and respect that we deserved. And here was a New Britain-based company thinking of setting up a shell in Bermuda to avoid paying taxes even though it is in every other way a full-fledged citizen of our United States. StanleyWorks started in 1843 when an enterprising businessman named Frederick Trent Stanley set up a small shop to make door bolts and other hardware from wrought iron. It was one of dozens of small foundries and other backyard industries in town struggling to make a go of it by turning out metal products--but Stanley had a special innovative spirit and an uncommon passion for doing things right. So, as often happens in America, what began as a modest enterprise prospered and grew. To see this company so willing to scrap its proud history and proud presence in my State, and to see similar things happening around the country, really got me angry. It got a lot of us angry. And with good reason. Thousands and thousands of hardworking small businesses like the business my father owned and operated, and thousands of corporations, contribute to America every single day--not only the way that all businesses do, by producing jobs for Americans--but also by paying their fair share of taxes. Meanwhile, other companies have the gall to look for a clever way to fatten their bottom line and get an edge over their competitors who play by the rules. That is why in May I cosponsored the bill by Senators Baucus and Grassley to close the tax loophole that Stanley attempted to exploit, and supported adding to that bill a provision preventing overseas tax dodgers from competing for or receiving federal contracts. I am proud that at least in my State, at least with StanleyWorks, a little bit of shame seemed to have an effect. StanleyWorks decided not to go overseas after all. They made the right decision, and I appreciate it. But other corporations are still busy relinquishing their American citizenship and, in the process, relinquishing their good corporate citizenship in the very same act. Mr. President, when you wriggle out of taxes you wriggle out of responsibility. When you evade the basic requirements that everybody else meets, you erode our common bonds as a community. It may seem to make sense for individual companies at first when they're viewing through the narrow and amoral blinders of the bottom line, but it's downright destructive for American society as a whole. And I must say, in the end it may not help a company's bottom line either, and this amendment helps make that clear. The fact is, when a company thumbs its nose at the country that gives it the opportunity to prosper, it loses credibility. It loses trust. It loses respect. It loses customers. And, yes, though it may seem that way based on the initial calculations of the CFO, it loses money. Good ethics make good business. This amendment leaves no doubt about that fact. The border, in this case, is the line between right and wrong. We in Congress have to draw that line--to say that if you cross it, you will not be eligible for Federal contracts. Plain and simple. In the context of Homeland Security, these actions seem even more unsavory. If a U.S. company wants to bid for work to defend the homeland--work that is being paid for in the tax dollars of its customers, among others--how can that company not even pledge allegiance, in the most basic fiscal sense, to the United States of America? This measure that the Senator from Minnesota has attached is right on target. It says if an American-based company is not willing to pay taxes to America, they ought not to receive contracts through the new Department of Homeland Security that we are establishing in this bill, which after all are contracts that will be paid for by taxes paid by American companies. To me, that seems to be elementary fairness. So I close with a quote from Paul Krugman of the New York Times, which I think says it well, when he wrote: [T]he trouble is that hinting, even by silence, that it's O.K. not to pay taxes is a dangerous game. . . . Accountants and tax planners have taken the hint; they now believe that it's safe to push the envelope. . . . Furthermore, what does it say to the nation when companies that are proud to stay American are punished, while companies that are willing to fly a flag of convenience are rewarded? That is what this amendment is all about and why I was pleased to support it on the voice vote and why I intend to work with all the strength and skill I have in the conference committee to make sure it is part of the final conference report that comes back to the Senate with this bill. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. It was my understanding, in the unanimous consent agreement Senator Reid propounded, that Senator Gramm would have a total of 20 minutes, which he could use either to speak on the Wellstone amendment or more generally on the bill. I see Senator Reid in the Chamber. Perhaps he can clarify.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Wanat and Thomas Holloman, congressional fellows in the Congressional Affairs Committee, and Michelle McMurry and Yul Kwon, fellows in my personal office, be granted floor privileges during the debate on H.R. 5005.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. It is easy to find common ground. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I suggest Senator Thompson and I engage in some conversation with the Senator from Minnesota. For that purpose, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from Minnesota. In a moment, I will call up an amendment, which is the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee substitute amendment on homeland security, the substitute for the House bill that was sent over here. I will speak on the substitute amendment. It had been my thought that, in the normal course, Senator Thompson, as ranking member on the committee, would introduce the first amendment. I have some reason to believe he may not be prepared to do that right away. But we are prepared to go forward. I want to indicate--and perhaps my friend from Minnesota will want to talk to the leader about this--that I understand that Senator Daschle and Senator Lott are prepared to move to table any amendments that they consider to be non-relevant to homeland security. Although, as the Senator from Minnesota knows, I share his anger about tax traders--if I may use that term--or tax evaders and support what he wants to do.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, this legislation is a result of the bipartisan work of the committee, and the occupant of the chair, the Senator from Missouri, has been a contributing member of it. It was endorsed by our committee on July 25 by a 12-to-5 vote. I believe very strongly that this deserves passage by the full Senate. The substitute I am offering was modified in two respects after the committee held its business meetings in July. First, we added an offset to certain direct spending in the bill related, in fact, to civil service reform. Second, we have clarified earlier language about the conduct of risk and threat assessment by the new Department. Both changes were made after canvassing members of our committee and with the approval of the majority of the committee. I will describe them in more detail in a few moments. This amendment, almost a year in the making, would create a focused and accountable Department of Homeland Security to enable our domestic defenses to rise to the unprecedented challenge of defeating terrorism on our home soil. Our defenses are either disorganized or organized for another day that is past. This bill aims to reorganize our homeland defenses to meet the unprecedented threats from terrorism that are sadly part of the 21st century. This amendment would also create a White House office to ensure coordination across the many offices involved in the fight against terrorism, including intelligence, diplomatic and law enforcement agencies, foreign policy agencies, and economic assistance agencies that will remain outside the Department. We recognize that the threat of terrorism on American soil will painfully be with us for some time. Therefore, the American people deserve and demand a Government equipped to meet and beat that threat. This committee-endorsed bill is presented in three divisions. Division A establishes a Department of Homeland Security, a White House office, and a national strategy for combating terrorism. Division B incorporates the provisions of the bipartisan Kennedy-Brownback reform of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. We are going to hear a lot during the debate, I am confident, about the need for further reorganization of the constituent agencies we have brought together in this bill. But the committee-endorsed bill actually does undertake a massive reorganization of the one agency that just about everyone agrees is in desperate need of reform, and that is the INS. Division C incorporates consensus civil service reforms, themselves the product of intensive collaboration and discussion over a period of time--months and perhaps years--that were added as an amendment by the bipartisan team of Senators Voinovich and Akaka. I expect we will hear people saying that our legislation hasn't given the President all the management flexibility he has asked for. Of course, that is literally true because we believe the administration's request simply went too far, usurping not only the fundamental responsibility of Congress to adopt civil service laws, but to undermine important protections that guard the workplace and Federal workers against favoritism and also that create some limits on the executive, some sense of accountability that is placed on those who have sway over those who have chosen to serve the public as Federal employees. I urge my fellow Senators on both sides of the aisle to look carefully at the reforms we have incorporated and the new flexibilities that we do provide, which are sensible and significant indeed and, I believe, if passed, would give the Secretary of Homeland Security more management flexibility than any Secretary operating under current law has ever had. I know this promises to be a controversial discussion, a serious discussion, and sometimes a passionate discussion. I look forward to airing our differences, resolving them, and getting a good bill to conference and then to the President's desk, certainly by the end of this session. We in the Congress have accomplished great and seemingly daunting tasks in the past; but, honestly, I can think of few in my time in the Senate, which is now 14 years, that have been more critical to our common future and cry out to us to work across party lines, to raise America's guard against the savage, inhumane, cunning threat of international terrorism. In fact, that is what happened on our committee. The legislation I offer today was, as I have said, endorsed in July. It was endorsed in a bipartisan vote of the Governmental Affairs Committee. That marked the end of one of many stages in the bill's development in our committee. All told, we have been at this for almost a year now--more than 11 months. We have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We have worked with experts in the field in various aspects of counterterrorism and homeland security. We have worked very closely since June 6--when President Bush endorsed the idea of a Department of Homeland Security--with the President and his staff at the White House. We gleaned insight and learned a lot from 18 hearings of the Governmental Affairs Committee that were held after September 11 on this subject and dozens of hearings held by other committees of the Congress. I must say that I am proud for our committee of the product of these labors. This legislation puts forth a creative, constructive, and comprehensive solution to the core homeland security challenges we now face. Our legislation differs in some respects, including some important ones from the House-passed bill and also from the President's proposal. We are going to hear people dwell on those differences for much of the debate. That is understandable. In some ways, it would be surprising if legislation as significant and this large were passed without dissent. In some ways, it would be not only surprising but unhealthy. The spirit of debate and controversy is here, and I hope out of it we will emerge with a very strong bill. In the case of each significant difference, I believe in the path we have taken, and I look forward to explaining why. Let me say again we cannot allow the differences to overshadow the vast common ground on which we stand. Mahatma Gandhi said: ``Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.'' He had a point. With a bill this big, as I said, I would be uneasy if the Senate began the process in total unison. Let's realize the underlying reality and not lose sight of it. Just about everyone in this Chamber, on both sides of the aisle, understands the urgent necessity of reordering and reorganizing our capabilities to detect danger, protect Americans from attack, and respond in the event of an incident. That consensus should guide us and should ultimately dominate here. In fact, it is hard to find a Member of the Senate or the other body who will say they are against the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. People have different ideas about how one or another piece of it might look, but there is no one I have heard who is really against the creation of this Department. In the end, that is because I think people understand that the current state of disorganization in the Federal Government's apparatus for responding to homeland security threats is dangerous. The consensus, therefore, for responding to that disorganization is by organizing the Federal Government better to meet those threats, to protect our people, to protect our infrastructure, to see the threats before they emerge through good intelligence and law enforcement, to invest in science and technology, to make protection of the American people at home easier and more effective. In the end, I am confident that we will pass a bill creating a Department of Homeland Security, and the sooner the better. The American people understand why the creation of a strong accountable Homeland Security Department is the best way forward. They know that the formation of such a Department will not of itself win our war against terrorism. Obviously, we need to continue to encourage and support our military that is on the front lines of offense against the al-Qaida forces that struck us on September 11 and clearly remain out there in the shadows scheming, arming, readying themselves to strike us again. The disadvantage we now have in defending ourselves because of our disorganization can no longer be afforded. Today, as former Assistant Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter told our committee on June 26: ``Homeland security remains institutionally homeless.'' It is well stated, ``Homeland security remains institutionally homeless.'' Everyone is in charge, therefore, no one is in charge. Our legislation would give this vital mission a home under a single roof and a firm foundation with someone, the Secretary, clearly in charge with the responsible authority and accountability and hopefully the resources to get results. For the first time, we would require in statute close and ongoing White House coordination of the many other pieces of the fight against this 21st century threat--terrorism--and those pieces could not be included in the Homeland Security Department. They include defense, diplomacy, finance, law enforcement, and others. For the first time, we, through this legislation, would require a comprehensive assessment of threats and vulnerability so that we understand the worst threats and the best ways to respond. We need a blueprint today. We do not have it. For the first time, we would create a new intelligence division focused on the threats to our homeland, equipped to truly connect the intelligence and law enforcement dots from Federal, State, and local agencies, from human and signal intelligence, from closed and open sources, from law enforcement and foreign sources, including particularly the Counterterrorism Center at the CIA. These dots were not connected before September 11. We lived to experience the disastrous consequences of that failure. For the first time, we would bolster emergency preparedness and response efforts to ensure that all layers and levels of Government are working together to anticipate and prepare for the worst. Today, coordination is the exception, not the rule, and that is no longer acceptable. For the first time, we would build strong bonds between Federal, State, and local governments to target terrorism. State and local officials are clearly on the front lines as first responders and, as I like to say, first preventers in the fight against terrorism. Today, local communities are already expending funds to better protect their people and their assets post-September 11. They are waiting for help. They need better training, new tools, and a coordinated prevention and protection strategy. That absence of coordination and failure of adequate support for State and local first responders and first preventers is no longer justifiable. For the first time, we would bring key border and national entry agencies together to ensure that dangerous people and goods and containers are kept out of our country without restricting the flow of legal immigration and commerce that nourishes the Nation. Today, threats to America may be slipping through the cracks because of our disorganization, and that is indefensible. For the first time, we would promote dramatic new research and technology development opportunities in homeland defense. This war has no traditional battlefield, as I have said. One of the nontraditional battlefields where we must emerge is the laboratory with science and technology. This bill would leverage Government and academic research capabilities and focus private sector innovation on the challenge. Today these efforts are blurred and dispersed, and that is unwise. For the first time under this proposal, we would facilitate close and comprehensive coordination between the public and private sectors to protect critical infrastructure. Fully 85 percent of our critical infrastructure is owned and operated by the private sector, but our Government is not now working systematically with those companies to identify and close vulnerabilities in, for example, communications networks, electric grids or food distribution systems. That is unbearable. Finally, our legislation would adopt consensus civil service reforms to give Government new tools to manage it. These bipartisan reforms, introduced by Senators Voinovich and Akaka, would provide significant new management flexibility in hiring employees and shaping the workforce, while assuring that the basic public accountability of the civil service system is not summarily dissolved. Under our bill, new flexibilities will increase accountability, strengthen the chain of command, and give the Secretary and agencies throughout our Government the ability to put the right people in the right place at the right time to defend the security of the American people. As the writer H.G. Wells once said, ``Adapt or perish--now as ever-- is nature's inexorable imperative.'' That is our choice today. Adapt and get stronger, or grow weaker; adapt, or give the American people reason to live in fear; adapt, or live at the mercy of our cruel and cunning terrorist enemies rather than being in control of our own destiny, as a great people should be. So that we have an understanding of why this legislation takes the form it does, let me tell you briefly how it has evolved. It has been a very careful and collaborative process, nearly a year in the making. Last October, Senator Specter and I introduced legislation to create a Department of Homeland Security. That was S. 1534. That legislation drew heavily on the recommendation of the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, which was chartered by the Secretary of Defense and supported by both the President and Congress, with the mission of providing the most comprehensive Government- sponsored review of our national security in more than 50 years. The Commission released three reports in 1999, 2000, 2001, respectively. Its third report, phase 3, entitled ``Roadmap for National Security: Imperative for Change,'' warned that we would soon face asymmetrical and terrorist threats and would need a focused Cabinet-level homeland security agency with adequate budget authority and direct accountability to the President to detect and counter those threats. The Commission's conclusion, headed by our former colleagues Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, was issued on January 31, 2001, more than a half year before the day of darkness, September 11, 2001. Their conclusion included this statement: ``The United States is today very poorly organized to design and implement any comprehensive strategy to protect the homeland.'' Senators Hart and Rudman, and the other distinguished members of the Commission, made their case effectively and, I might say, eloquently. But the attacks of September 11 tragically drove the message home as no words could or, unfortunately, did. We were suddenly and clearly aware that we were more susceptible than we ever expected to the brutality of terrorism directed against innocent Americans for one reason only: Because they were Americans. No matter their origin, in terms of ethnicity, religion, race, gender, age, place in life, new American or born American, but just because they were Americans in America, they were targets. We realized we were susceptible to that kind of violent extremism and we did not have the organizational capabilities to leverage our strengths and protect ourselves to the best of our ability. So the bill I was privileged to introduce with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Arlen Specter, making it obviously bipartisan, last October, hewed closely to the model proposed by the Hart-Rudman Commission and also drew on recommendations made by the Gilmore Commission and others. We called for a new Department made up of the Coast Guard, Customs, Border Patrol, and FEMA, as well as some smaller offices on critical infrastructure protection and emergency preparedness. The compelling need for such a Department was reinforced in those 18 hearings before the Governmental Affairs Committee during which 85 different witnesses testified on various aspects of homeland security. We learned a great deal also from dozens of other hearings by other committees on both sides of the Hill. So for those who may worry or suggest that we are moving more rapidly than we should, this is the record: Painstaking, deliberative, extensive consultation, investigation, education by experts, and an openness to ideas wherever they came from because of the critical necessity to do something to protect our security. As chairman of the committee, I have been guided by a maxim that was used about foreign and defense policy, which is that partisanship stops at our Nation's coasts. In the same way, since this new enemy, the terrorists, has brought warfare within the United States of America, I say when we are discussing matters of homeland security, partisanship also must stop. That is the spirit in which our committee has gone forward. We discovered, whether the subject was anthrax in the mail or port security or critical infrastructure protection, that the Federal Government is now lacking an approach to our problems that is either strong enough or coordinated enough to meet what we now know, post- September 11, is the reality of the challenge to us. In other words, we are dividing our strengths at a time when we should be multiplying them. Again and again, the same message emerged from the witnesses who came before us, in big bold letters one might say: We still are not adequately prepared for terrorism at home, and a strong Cabinet-level Department, encompassing the key programs related to homeland security, is the necessary first step to addressing those deficiencies and closing those vulnerabilities. The need for such a Department was further underscored by our experience with the Office of Homeland Security that was established last October by Executive Order of the President. The President appointed Gov. Tom Ridge to fill that position. Governor Ridge is an able, hard-working public servant. He has had the President's confidence and his ear from the very start. But we saw then, and the President would later acknowledge, that the office simply lacked the budgetary and organizational authority to reshape the Federal bureaucracy to define priorities and to get results. Only a Cabinet- level Secretary in charge of the Cabinet-level Department could accomplish that task. In the debate that has already begun and clearly will go on in consideration of this bill, the President and the administration and their allies in this Chamber are saying we have not given the Executive enough management flexibility. The fact is that flexibility must come with power. It was our bill almost a year ago, in contrast to the President's position, that wanted to give the Executive the authority to be able to carry out the necessary changes in the Federal bureaucracy. So to portray somehow that this bill is protective of the Federal bureaucracy is not right. In fact, the President's original position that this task could be carried out by an Office of Homeland Security did not give that office the power. It had no management flexibility because the constituent agencies exercised the authority they had under law which was superior to the director of the office. Therefore, in that sense, as well as all the specific senses in which we give management flexibility to the Executive, we are proposing a Department with a strong Secretary. That is the way to get the job done: blend the employees together, encourage them to work together, and set standards for them achieving homeland security. That can only be done by a strong Secretary. At the same time, however, it became apparent that no single Department could address all of the Federal programs or coordinate all the programs of all the Federal agencies engaged in homeland security or in the war on terrorism. Therefore, last May, Senator Specter and I combined our proposal with legislation introduced by our colleague from Florida, Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, calling for the creation of a National Office for Combating Terrorism within the White House to coordinate Federal antiterrorism efforts government-wide. In contrast to the position created for Governor Ridge by Executive Order, this office would be a Senate confirmed-position, with full accountability and authority as well as statutory power to review Federal budgets related to terrorism. The combined legislation that we have before the Senate in the form of this substitute amendment which I have introduced this afternoon, resulted from, as I said, Senator Specter and I joining with Senator Graham. Obviously, there is more added by the committee. That legislation originally was introduced on May 2, and considered by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on May 22 of this year, and reported out on a 9-to-7 vote--a vote exactly split along party lines. On June 6, we got a surprise, a welcome surprise. We gained another supporter, a most important supporter. That was, of course, President George Bush. This, I believe, was a recognition by the President--he said so in his own words--that the Office of Homeland Security, as it was created by Executive Order, was just too weak to get the job done. That is what we had been arguing for months. That announcement was followed by a legislative proposal from the administration. We were pleased to see the administration's bill encompass almost all the S. 2452 provisions regarding a Department of Homeland Security. It went further, however, and also proposed that additional programs and agencies be transferred to the new Department--and there were some good ideas there--to ensure the new administration proposals were properly considered and necessary adjustments made to our legislation. As chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I held four additional hearings on aspects of the President's proposal. Incorporating the insight from those hearings, as well as input from extensive discussion with colleagues, including committee chairmen and ranking members, we prepared an expanded version of S. 2452. The expanded version went a considerable way toward incorporating the proposals the President and the administration made that had not been made part of our original bill. It was further amended during two very thoughtful, constructive days of committee deliberation and was ultimately endorsed by our Senate Governmental Affairs Committee by a bipartisan vote of 12 to 5. That is what I offered as a substitute amendment to H.R. 5005. The amendment I now offer is the product of this lengthy and healthy process of consultation and deliberation. I thank my colleagues in the Senate for indulging me in this brief history expedition, and I want to say why I take the time to discuss the time it took; and that is to demonstrate that we have gone a great distance to hone this bill, to be open to input from anyone, to reach consensus, to modify, and amplify different sections. The Department we have designed would for the first time combine, under a single chain of command and under the leadership of a single Secretary who is accountable to the President and the people, dozens of agencies and offices responsible for homeland security. The Department's overarching mission, as stated in Section 101 of this amendment, is twofold: To promote homeland security, particularly with regard to terrorism; and to carry out the other functions and promote the other missions of entities transferred to the Department as provided by law. That is a very important statement. As much attention as the first part of the mission, homeland security, will get in this debate, the second half cannot be forgotten because even though this Department's very reason for being created is to intelligently organize our Government's homeland security efforts, many of its constituent agencies perform vital, non-homeland security duties, as well. They cannot and will not stop doing that work. Our bill, in clear and unequivocal language, requires the Department to uphold these other missions and functions. The extent to which the constituent agencies and programs that are brought into this Department can both protect homeland security and continue to carry out the other responsibilities will depend on the extent to which we in Congress, through the appropriations process, are prepared to support this new Department. The Secretary will be responsible for running the Department and for developing policies and plans for the promotion of homeland security. The legislation also charges the Secretary with including State and local governments, tribes, and other entities who, again, are first responders and first preventers of the fight against terrorism in every State and city and county and town in our country. The Secretary must consult them, with the Secretary of Defense and also State officers, regarding possible integration of the U.S. military, including the National Guard, into all aspects of the homeland security strategy and its implementation. The Guard is a mighty force, with an historic mission which was originally, of course, to protect homeland security. It has tremendous potential in this new 21st century, in responding to this 21st century threat to our security without making it by any stretch, kind of a Federal constabulary. But the Guard has extraordinary skill and equipment sophistication and can play a very constructive role here. We also have charged the Secretary with the responsibility of developing a comprehensive information technology blueprint for the Department. The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, talked quite eloquently and effectively about one aspect of that yesterday. In addition, the Secretary is responsible for administering the homeland security advisory system, and for annually reviewing and updating the Federal Response Plan for homeland security and emergency preparedness. This is a big job. The size should make it clear how much we need the new Department. No one in Government is performing these duties adequately today. If they are doing the duties, they are not doing them systematically, certainly not synergistically. There are a lot of gears turning. Some are touching each other, some are not. Some are spinning in isolation. We want the gears to turn together, generating torque, producing energy, and getting results. That means more security for the American people at home. No one can claim that the creation of a new Department is a guarantee or panacea for all our problems. I agree with Charles Boyd, distinguished American, great public servant and Executive Director of the Hart-Rudman Commission: ``There is no perfect organizational design, no flawless managerial mix. The reason is that organizations are made up of people, and people invariably devise informal means of dealing with one another in accord with the accidents of personality and temperament.'' Even excellent organizational structure cannot make impetuous or mistaken leaders patient or wise, but poor organizational design can make good leaders less effective. That, in one sense, is what this is all about. Poor organizational design makes good leaders less effective with unnecessary gaps, overlaps, and bureaucratic barriers--by spreading authority and resources too thin, by diminishing accountability, by tolerating overlap and inefficiency--while good organizational design will empower good leaders, hold people accountable, and enable their talent and hard work to make a difference. In other words, 10 gallons of gas poured into a well-designed, efficient engine can get you long distances at high speeds, but 10 gallons poured into an old, less efficient engine won't get you very far in a very efficient way. That leads me to a second caution about the legislation, which is the blueprint that we need to build a Homeland Security Department that America needs. In a number of areas likely to be the most controversial, I strongly believe we have chosen the right path. But it would be arrogant of me or anyone to suggest that this legislation is perfect. It is not. That is why we have specifically built into it room for adjustment and refinement as the administration actually begins moving the pieces together. And we have given them a year from the effective date to, in fact, do that. We require the administration to report back to Congress 6 months after the effective date or earlier during the reorganization process, and every 6 months thereafter, and require recommendations for changes to law at these junctures and throughout the process. So even the passage of this bill will be not the end of the process, but its start; as Churchill once said in a very different context, ``not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning.'' But the fact that we cannot guarantee perfection is no argument against this legislation. Obviously, even our country's Constitution, which Senator Byrd and Senator Thompson and others quite eloquently and correctly honored and celebrated in yesterday's debate, the very foundation of our democracy, a democracy created with as much foresight and wisdom as any other in the history of government, was not perfect. It has been amended 27 times. At the time, the Founders understood it had to be built to change over time. Indeed, during the ratification debate, Alexander Hamilton urged those who criticized the Constitution not to fail to approve it in what he called ``the chimerical pursuit of a perfect plan.'' In a more homely translation that we constantly--at least regularly--use here: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Similarly, we must not fail to create this Department in pursuit of a perfect Department. History has dropped at our feet an urgent and necessary challenge, to reshape our Government, to protect the lives and affirm the values of our people, for surely our terrorist enemies are as intent on striking and destroying our humanistic, tolerant, inclusive, free values as they are of destroying our people. We can either meet the moment by staying focused on that goal or we can let it pass by bickering over petty and sometimes partisan or ideological particulars. Let the debate go forward, but let us, as we go forward in debating and amending this substitute amendment that I have laid down, remember the urgent challenge the terrorists have given us and the broad ground we all seem to occupy about most of how we should respond to that challenge, by creating this Department. Let's have some debates and disagreements. But when it is all over, let's remember, not only in this bill but more generally in our values, there is so much more that unites us, and that ultimately is our greatest strength against our enemies, past, present, and future. We must be certain to preserve that when this debate is done and a new Department of Homeland Security is created. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an addendum statement, a section-by-section analysis, and a letter dated August 28, 2002.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4471 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will.