John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada, and especially I thank Senator Roberts who brings great expertise to this issue, given his position as chairman of the Committee on Intelligence. I mention again the families and the Commission fully support this amendment. I have no doubt when we take this vote, my friends, that the Commission unanimously, and the families of September 11 support this amendment. I will quote from Jim Thompson, former Governor of Illinois, a member of the Commission, who says: . . . I urge the Senate to make the Commission's recommendations for Congressional reform as high a priority as it made our other recommendations. The congressional reforms are important and necessary. That is why the Commission was unanimously strongly recommending a new committee structure combining authorizing and appropriating authority in a simplified and functional Homeland Security committee structure. Mr. Richard Ben-Veniste: I urge the Senate to make the Commission's recommendations for Congressional reform as high a priority as it made our other recommendations. The Commission strongly recommended new committee structure combining authorizing and appropriating authority in a simplified and functional Homeland Security committee structure. There is no doubt how the Commission stands or how the families stand. What this is all about is contained on page 419 of the 9/11 Commission report, the bestselling report: Of all our recommendations-- ``Of all our recommendations''-- strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important. So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need. This is really what this amendment is all about. . . . the American people will not get the security they want and need. So we are not talking about a turf battle here. We are not talking about who is going to do what and who is going to have the power of the purse. We are talking about the security that the American people want and need, according to the 9/11 Commission. Mr. President, I am a bit of a realist. I think it is going to be very difficult to win this vote. ``Intense pressure'' has been put on Members of the Senate as well as members of the Commission. I thank the members of the Commission who have stood up to that pressure, but I have no doubt that if this amendment goes down, we will perform two-thirds of our duties, and one-third, which, as the Commission pointed out, is the most difficult and most important, we will have failed that. And that is congressional oversight. That is really what this vote is all about. Mr. President, I yield the floor and ask for the vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think it may be important that we pause for a minute and figure out what we have done. I would like to have a colloquy with the Senator from Maine. We are now at a position where we are supposed to be consolidating authority in the homeland security committee. In fact, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky said last night: The most sweeping change we recommend is to consolidate congressional jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security. If you don't think this is major reform, ask the roughly 25 Senate committee or subcommittee chairmen who currently have jurisdiction over Homeland Security agencies or programs. Truth in advertising: The homeland security committee has 38 percent of the Department's budget and 8 percent of the Department's employees. That is the great consolidation. Why don't we just stop, why don't we call it a night and say the heck with this farce. This is crazy. This is stupid. The amendment I am about to propose does, what? Something shocking. It takes the Transportation Security Administration, which is the heart and soul of homeland security, and moves it to, guess what. The homeland security committee from the committee on which I have been proud to serve for 18 years. Guess where the Coast Guard remains. The Coast Guard remains, guess where. In the Commerce Committee. This is a joke. This is a joke, I say to my dear friends. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Maine.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, later this afternoon the Senate is expected to adopt an amendment by the majority leader that establishes a national counterproliferation center. Establishing such a center now is premature and prejudges the ongoing work of the WMD Commission on which I have the honor of serving. I am one who said we have to get this done, and have done everything under my power to be of some small assistance to the managers of the bill to complete our work on the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. So I find myself in kind of an interesting position saying that we ought to slow down on this one, but I am saying it because this issue was not addressed by the 9/11 Commission. The President asked the WMD Commission to examine whether the U.S. Government should establish a national counterproliferation center and to offer our recommendation. If I may quote from the President's remarks on the day that he announced the establishment of the WMD Commission: Given the growing threat of weapons and missile proliferation in our world, it may also be necessary to create a similar center in our government to bring together our intelligence analysis planning and operations to track and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. I asked the committee commission headed by Judge Laurence Silberman and Senator Chuck Robb to determine the merits of creating such a center. In other words, the WMD Commission has been chartered to determine the creation of such a center. I have to tell my colleagues, as a member of that Commission, we have not yet reached a point where we could either recommend or not recommend. The Commission and its staff have held a number of discussions on the desirability of establishing a counterproliferation center, and we will soon examine the structure and responsibilities that such a center might entail, if it should be established at all. In response to the President's specific request, we will issue a formal recommendation in our final report in March. This amendment could seriously undermine the work of the WMD Commission. The amendment would establish a national counterproliferation center before the Commission has even had a chance to fully study the issue. Rather than waiting for an in-depth review of the pros and cons of moving ahead with such a center--a review that will be fully completed in March--this amendment goes ahead and does it anyway. The proponents of this amendment, and I understand that, have argued that the center would not be established for a year after enactment of the underlying bill and the structures and responsibilities could be changed later. But if we are planning to delay establishing the center for a year and if we are open to changes which would presumably require changes in law, then why are we passing this amendment? Why interrupt the work of the WMD Commission when we could have the benefit of their assessment in a few months? If the WMD Commission concludes no center is needed, or something different is more appropriate, then it would be very hard to find an opportunity to take this recommendation into account, short of passing legislation that will rescind this amendment if it is enacted. I don't believe we should interfere with the WMD Commission's work. What we should do is allow all of the facts to be considered and debated, and then we can take the appropriate actions at that time. Let's make no mistake, establishing this center would be a very significant action by the Congress. It cuts to the heart of the security issues that we all agree are critical to our Nation. We need to make sure that if we are going to do this, we do it right. We should await the WMD Commission's report, hear a variety of opinions, and structure the center, if it is needed, in a way that makes the most sense of the task at hand. We should not take the shortcuts on an issue of such importance, but I am afraid we are on the verge of doing just that. We owe it to the American people to fully assess the implications of building a national counterproliferation center. This will be far reaching. I don't believe any Members have had a chance to examine this in any detail. The amendment puts the cart before the horse and I strongly oppose it. I repeat again, the 9/11 Commission did not address the issue of counterproliferation. They addressed a broad variety of issues but counterproliferation was not one of them. And weapons of mass destruction, in the sense of the charter of the WMD Commission, was not part of their deliberations. I have strongly supported the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I am proud of the work Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman have done in addressing every single one of the 9/11 Commission recommendations with the exception of two that have to do with the congressional reorganization. Having said that, this amendment is out of the purview of the September 11 Commission and, frankly, out of the purview of this pending legislation. The majority leader has assured me there will be language, certain caveats about how it could be changed, et cetera, and I appreciate that. We have had a significant dialog on the issue. But the difference I have with the amendment and the majority leader is basically that we have said we are going to establish this national counterproliferation center, period. This is not an issue of national emergency. I think it does a disservice to the WMD Commission on which I serve, which would report out in March their recommendations and conclusions, and we would be acting, then, on far firmer ground. Maybe we can talk about it more after this bill is passed. I know the White House has severe reservations about this amendment. Maybe we could continue a dialog on it and at least make this amendment significantly more palatable so that the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission recommendations that come out in March can be fully and completely considered. I thank the majority leader for his commitment to maintaining a dialog on this issue. I may not be able to speak again in the Senate, but I again express my profound and deep appreciation to Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman who have displayed adequately for all Americans as well as Members of this body that if there is a cause great enough and people good enough that we will act in a bipartisan fashion for the good of this Nation. I have been in this body for only 18 years, but this is one of my prouder moments because of the way this entire body has acted in the national interest. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak in relation to the H.R. 2608, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act, which passed with a substitute amendment by unanimous consent. Earthquakes are some of the world's most dangerous natural hazards. They can seem to strike with sudden unpredictability, and can affect a large area causing damage miles away from the epicenter. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, NEHRP, was created in 1977 to conduct basic research about earthquakes and develop strategies, such as stricter building codes, to mitigate the effects of them. The NEHRP program is composed of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, in the Department of Homeland Security's Emergency Preparedness and Response, EP&R, Directorate; the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST; the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS; and the National Science Foundation, NSF. The 6.0 magnitude earthquake that struck Parkfield, California last week demonstrated both the dangers of earthquakes and the success of the NEHRP program. Because of the strong building codes and preparations developed by NEHRP and taken by the people of Parkfield, there were no fatalities. This bill would authorize the NEHRP program from Fiscal Year, FY, 2005 through FY 2009. In addition, it would make a number of reforms to the program, including designating NIST as the program's lead agency and establishing an Interagency Coordinating Committee and an Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction to improve the program's coordination and implementation. This bill also would require the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish a National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program consisting of representatives from NIST, NSF, FEMA, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. The purpose of this program would be to improve our understanding of windstorms and how they affect our communities. We recently witnessed the devastation to Florida by Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne. Congress should recognize the importance of windstorm research to develop ways to reduce future damage from hurricanes, tornadoes, and other such phenomena. Finally, the bill would authorize funding for the Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Commercial Space Transportation from FY 2005 through FY 2009. SpaceShipOne demonstrated yesterday that we are at the beginning of a new age in space travel, in which private citizens will be able to finance, operate, and travel in their own vehicles. It is vital that this office be adequately funded to ensure that the government plays an appropriate oversight role in this promising field. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their support of this legislation, and ask unanimous consent that my statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate will approve a Senate resolution, which I introduced with my colleagues Senators Hatch and Kennedy, calling on the President to exercise his constitutional authority to pardon posthumously the world's first African-American heavyweight champion, John Arthur ``Jack'' Johnson, for his racially motivated 1913 conviction. For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with the plight of Jack Johnson, he is considered by many to be the most dominant athlete in boxing history. Born in the Jim Crow-era South in 1878 to parents who were former slaves, he realized his talent for the sweet science early in life. In order to make a living, Johnson traveled across the country fighting anyone willing to face him. But he was denied repeatedly on purely racial grounds a chance to fight for the world/ heavyweight title. For too long, African American fighters were not seen as legitimate contenders for the championship. Fortunately, after years of perseverance, Johnson was finally granted an opportunity in 1908 to fight the then-reigning title holder, Tommy Burns. Johnson handily defeated Burns to become the first African-American heavyweight champion. Jack Johnson's success in the ring, and sometimes indulgent lifestyle outside of it, fostered resentment among many and raised concerns that Johnson's continued dominance in the ring would somehow disrupt what was then perceived by many as a ``racial order.'' So, a search for a white boxer who could defeat Johnson began--a recruitment effort that was dubbed the search for the ``great white hope.'' That hope arrived in the person of former champion Jim Jeffries who returned from retirement to fight Johnson in 1910. But when Johnson defeated Jeffries, race riots broke out as many sought to avenge the loss. Following the defeat of the ``great white hope,'' the Federal Government launched an investigation into the legality of Johnson's relationships with white women. The Mann Act, which was enacted in 1910, outlawed the transport of white women across State lines for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for ``any other immoral purpose.'' Using the ``any other immoral purpose'' clause as a pretext, Federal law enforcement officials set out to ``get'' Johnson. On October 18, 1912, he was arrested for transporting his white girlfriend across State lines in violation of the Act. But the charges were dropped when the woman, whose mother had originally tipped off Federal officials, refused to cooperate with authorities. She later married Johnson. Yet Federal authorities persisted in their persecution of Johnson, persuading a former white girlfriend of Johnson's to testify that he had transported her across State lines. Her testimony resulted in Johnson's conviction in 1913, when he was sentenced to 1 year and a day in Federal prison. During Johnson's appeal, one prosecutor admitted that ``Mr. Johnson was perhaps persecuted as an individual, but that it was his misfortune to be the foremost example of the evil in permitting the intermarriage of whites and blacks.'' Johnson fled the country to Canada, and then traveled to various European and South American countries, before losing his heavyweight championship title in Cuba in 1915. He returned to the United States in 1920, surrendered to authorities, and served nearly a year in Federal prison. Despite this obvious injustice, Johnson refused to turn his back on the country that betrayed him. During World War II, he traveled the country to promote war bonds. Johnson died in an automobile accident in 1946. A gross injustice was done to Jack Johnson when a Federal law was misused to send him to prison. The Senate's passage of this resolution and the President's pardon of Jack Johnson would not right this injustice, but it would recognize it, and shed light on the achievements of an athlete who was forced into the shadows of bigotry and prejudice. Taking such actions would allow future generations to grasp fully what Jack Johnson accomplished against great odds and appreciate his contributions to society unencumbered by the taint of his criminal conviction. Jack Johnson was a flawed individual who was certainly controversial. But he was also a historic American figure, whose life and accomplishments played an instrumental role in our Nation's progress toward true equality under the law. And he deserved much better than a racially motivated conviction, which denied him of his liberty, and served to diminish his athletic, cultural, and historic significance. The pardon of Jack Johnson would not be an act that would benefit Mr. Johnson or his heirs. Rather, his pardon would be a nominal but useful corrective of a shameful injustice that would serve as a testament of America's resolve to live up to its noble ideals of justice and equality. Instead of erasing from our memories the injustice that deprived a great athlete of his livelihood and freedom, we have an opportunity to speak as one in condemning the public intolerance and misuse of Federal authority that was perpetrated against this man. While we know that we cannot possibly right the wrong that was done to Jack Johnson, we can take this small step toward acknowledging his mistreatment and removing the cloud that casts a shadow on his legacy. I urge adoption of the resolution. I will mention there is a great American named Ken Burns who may be the foremost maker of documentaries in America. Ken Burns, Mohammad Ali, and many other respected figures throughout America have formed a committee for the pardon of Jack Johnson. I hope we can get it sooner or later.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 447, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. McCAIN

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

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as I believe most of my colleagues know, Senator Lieberman and I made a commitment to the families and the 9/11 Commission that we would ensure that all of their 41 recommendations were considered one way or another in this legislation. Because of the lack of scope of the Governmental Affairs Committee, there were several recommendations which were not considered. Senator Lieberman and I have already proposed and had adopted several amendments addressing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. There are three remaining issues. One of them is noncontroversial, which I will be proposing at this time and would hope would be voice voted since it is noncontroversial. Then there are two additional amendments concerning two additional recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Both of those are controversial, so I would propose those amendments and then ask that they be set aside after they are placed for consideration. Then they would be disposed of after debate, discussion, or however the managers would like to dispose of those additional two amendments. I hope I made myself somewhat coherent in that explanation. The amendment that is at the desk addresses the 9/11 Commission's recommendation to improve the transitions between administrations. It is nearly identical to title IV of the 9/11 Commission Report Implementation Act, which we introduced on September 7, except that it does not include the security clearance-related provisions that were adopted by the Governmental Affairs Committee and are already in the underlying bill, S. 2845. The Commission report states: Since a catastrophic attack could occur with little or no notice, we should minimize as much as possible the disruption of national security policymaking during the change of administrations by accelerating the process for national security appointments. We think the process could be improved significantly so transitions can work more effectively and allow new officials to assume their new responsibilities as quickly as possible. As recommended by the Commission, this amendment is designed to help ensure an incoming President-elect has his or her national security team in place during a transition between administrations. The amendment would direct the outgoing administration to provide the President-elect, as soon as possible after the general election, a detailed, highly classified summary of current threats to the national security, major military and covert operations, and pending decisions on possible uses of military force. It also provides that the President-elect should submit to the agency responsible for background checks the names of possible candidates for high-level national security positions as soon as possible after the date of the Presidential election. In turn, it requires that agency to undertake and complete, to the fullest extent possible, the background investigations necessary to provide appropriate security clearances to these individuals by the date of inauguration. Finally, it urges the Senate to consider the nominations of top national security appointees as soon as possible, preferably within 30 days of the submission of a nominee. As the chairman of a committee which has responsibility for the confirmation of many Presidential nominees, I assure my colleagues that I consider the Senate's advise and consent responsibilities to be very important. This amendment is not proposing that we shirk our duties in any way but that we act in the most efficient manner possible to thoroughly review the nominees to national security-related positions and allow for their confirmation so they can carry out the very important duties to which they are charged. I recognize that some, including administration officials, would prefer that we go further. It has been suggested and I believe the House bill even proposes that if the Senate has not voted to confirm a nominee within 30 days after the nominee's name has been submitted, the President alone should have the power to make that appointment. I, for one, cannot support such a proposal, and I doubt that it would have the support of the majority of Members in this body. Let me also point out that this amendment does not include the Commission's recommendations that the Senate should not require confirmation of such national security executive appointees below executive level 3. One of the reasons our amendment does not address that particular proposal is that upon review of such positions, we learned that it would eliminate the Senate's advise and consent duties for many important security positions that we believe merit the Senate's action. Executive level 4 includes all of the Assistant Secretary positions, many of which one would argue are important national security-related positions. Examples of these positions include the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy, and others. We believe that instead of removing the Senate's advise and consent obligations, a better approach would be for the Senate to fulfill its obligation in as expeditious a manner as possible. We hope this body will make a greater effort to hold confirmation hearings and report those national security-related nominations to the full Senate for swift consideration. To help spur swift Senate consideration, this amendment includes a sense of the Senate urging the President-elect to submit the nominations for high-level national security positions to the Senate by the date of the inauguration. It also calls for Senate committees to hold nomination hearings and consider these nominations to the fullest extent within 30 days of their submission. The amendment before the Senate is but one proposal that we need to move forward. The more critical proposal which we still need to act on is congressional reorganization and oversight over intelligence and homeland security. As the Commission very directly pointed out, not only are Government agency reforms needed, so too are institutional reforms within Congress. The Commission went so far as to call congressional oversight as ``dysfunctional.'' I remain hopeful that the bipartisan working group tasked by the leadership to develop a proposal for congressional restructuring will be successful. We owe it to the American public to fulfill our collective responsibilities. These are not normal times. We are at war. I just want to say again, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have seen particularly the Defense Department, as well as other national-security-related positions, literally vacant for months and months and months. This is really not an acceptable situation, and it has grown worse and worse. Background security checks have lengthened in their time. The Senate doesn't get moving until a couple of months after we are in session. It is not fair. It is not fair to the nominees, it is not fair to the country, it certainly is not fair to the Departments that are deprived of the services of a new President's team. So I hope we will support this amendment. I do not believe there is any controversy, so I ask for a voice vote before I move to a second amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as I noted on the floor yesterday, the Senate is now engaged in perhaps the most important debate of the 108th Congress. Increasing the security of our country against terrorist attack requires new strategies, new ways of thinking, and new ways of organizing our Government. That is what this legislative debate is all about. Earlier this month, I joined with Senator Lieberman and others in introducing comprehensive legislation to implement all the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Along with Senator Lieberman, I pledged that the Commission's recommendations--including the ones not already addressed in the underlying bill--would be fully debated. Yesterday, we offered an amendment that was designed to address the Commission's transportation security-related recommendations. Now we will offer an amendment that encompasses the Commission's diplomacy, foreign aid, and military-related recommendations. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Bayh, and ask for its immediate consideration. This amendment is very similar to Title V of S. 2774, the 9/11 Commission Report Implementation Act of 2004, which we introduced earlier this month. In drafting this amendment, we have worked with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to develop consensus language concerning areas of their jurisdiction, and with the Senate Armed Services and Banking Committees to develop language for other provisions. As the Commission report observed, there were many deficiencies that led to the terrorist attacks of September 11. Not the least was the failure of the United States to adapt its foreign policy to address the changed realities of the post-cold war era. In hindsight, it is evident that we did not do enough to prevent the creation of terrorist sanctuaries, encourage the democratization of the Greater Middle East, and engage countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia in their battles against fundamentalism. In light of this realization, the Commission found that no single set of strategies is sufficient to prevent future terrorist attacks. The United States must use all of the instruments at our disposal to counter the short-and long-term threats posed by international terrorism. For this reason, it is critical to pay due attention to the role of diplomacy, foreign aid, and the military. Consistent with the Commission's recommendations, this amendment requires the executive branch to develop a strategy to address and, where possible, eliminate terrorist sanctuaries. It renews the U.S. commitment to Pakistan's future, in light of the critical role that country plays in the war on terror, and authorizes assistance to Afghanistan--aid that many of us believe must be increased. The amendment addresses our relations with Saudi Arabia and suggests establishing an international contact group to develop a multilateral counterterrorism strategy. Our amendment also calls on the U.S. Government to work with our coalition partners to develop a common approach to the treatment of detainees, and reiterates standards for the humane treatment of enemy detainees--standards that our soldiers and officials should have been following all along. Most of this language was taken directly from the Senate-passed version of the Department of Defense Authorization bill, which is now pending in conference. The Senate has already spoken on this issue once; however, it has yet to be enacted. We must continue pressing to ensure that America treats individuals in its custody humanely, as the Commission rightly advocates. As the 9/11 Commission rightly pointed out, allowing torture of prisoners only makes it more difficult to build the alliances and support we need to defeat terrorism. Portrayals of inhumane treatment of captured terrorists hinder our ability to engage in the wider struggle against them. Other provisions in this amendment are designed to enhance America's ability to fight the war of ideas by promoting universal values of democracy, tolerance, and openness. It authorizes funding for U.S. broadcasts to Muslim countries, and authorizes an increase in our education and exchange programs. In addition, it establishes an International Youth Opportunity Fund that will provide financial assistance for the improvement of public education in the Middle East. Finally, the amendment notes that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a grave and gathering threat to this country, and requires the executive branch to develop a strategy to expand and strengthen our nonproliferation programs. This amendment is the next step in fulfilling the mandate of the 9/11 Commission recommendations and ensuring that we orient our diplomacy, foreign aid, and military programs toward combating terrorist threats, in both the short and long terms. The provisions in our amendment are not the only steps that are needed, and there are a number of other important actions that the executive branch should undertake in order to fully implement the Commission's recommendations. But I believe that passing this amendment is a vital and necessary step. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment of Senator Kyl be laid aside for purposes of proposing additional amendments.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment may be subject to more debate and discussion and may require a recorded vote. I intend to propose this amendment, discuss it, and recognize that there will be further discussion about this amendment. This amendment addresses the terrorist travel and screening sections of the 9/11 Commission report. Contained in this amendment are the recommendations found on pages 383-390 of the 9/11 Commission report. The text of this amendment is nearly identical to Title VI of S. 2774, which was introduced September 7. In addition to working with the Commission on this amendment, Senator Lieberman and I have sought the advice and counsel from as broad a range of interested parties as possible. Meetings have been held to address the concerns of many of the interested groups. While some may prefer that we do not address these provisions, that is simply not an option. We must act one way or the other on all of the recommendations in the Commission report. Despite the hard work by the people at the Department of Homeland Security, it is apparent that our Government has just begun to carry out some of the reforms necessary to prevent terrorists from entering our country. Much remains to be done to target terrorist travel, combine our multiple screening systems and ensure that identification documents used to enter this country or to be used as feeder documents are trustworthy. Additionally, more must be done to improve the training we provide to our immigration and consular officers. These people represent the first line of defense in the security of our borders. We must ensure that these officers have access to the best training, technology and information available. According to the Commission Report: Better technology and training to detect terrorist travel documents are the most important immediate steps to reduce America's vulnerability to clandestine entry. By restricting terrorist access to travel documents, we increase the difficulty to travel into the United States. Our legislation aims to address this pressing issue by requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to work with multiple Government agencies to develop a unified strategy for combining terrorist travel intelligence, operations and law enforcement into a cohesive effort to intercept terrorists, find terrorist facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility domestically and internationally. All agencies responsible for guarding our Nation against terrorist attack must be on the same page in our approach to keeping terrorists out. In order to efficiently screen those entering the United States, the multiple terrorist screening systems already in place must be integrated. Our legislation would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive screening system that brings together an integrated network of screening points that includes the Nation's border security systems, transportation system, and critical infrastructure and facilities. The Department of Homeland Security will begin to address this issue as they carry out the orders given in HSPD- 11; however, our amendment represents a more comprehensive approach to uniting our various screening systems. Fundamental to increasing the security of our borders is the quick and full implementation of US VISIT. I, like many of my colleagues, have been troubled by the pace in which this system has been rolled out. This legislation requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop and implement a plan for the accelerated and full implementation of the US VISIT system. Additionally, the amendment directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a single, consolidated program designed to expedite the travel of previously screened travelers across the borders of the United States. Lastly, this amendment would implement 9/11 Commission's recommendation that the Federal Government set standards for the issuance of birth certificates, driver's licenses, and other sources of identification. It has been well documented that many of the hijackers and their associates used counterfeit social security numbers and other fraudulent documents to obtain legal driver's licenses or State-issued ID cards--or were able to simply but fake ID's--which they then used to open bank accounts, rent cars, board airplanes, and attend flight schools. The ease with which these basic documents of American life can be counterfeited or obtained fraudulently is clearly a gaping hole in homeland security. Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, at least half the States have passed legislation to tighten up their eligibility requirements and procedures for issuing driver's licenses and State ID cards. These initiatives are commendable and have improved security, but the report of the 9/11 Commission, and numerous reports by Federal agencies and other organizations have all concluded that additional measures must be taken to improve the security of driver's licenses and other forms of identification. One study deserves special note. Over a 10-month period in 2002 and 2003, the Government Accountability Office--GAO--conducted an undercover investigation of State driver's license practices and procedures, visiting seven States--Arizona, New York, Michigan, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, California and the District of Columbia. In every jurisdiction, GAO investigators were able to obtain a driver's license or State-issued ID using fraudulent documents, including fake birth certificates and fake licenses from other States. Our amendment would require birth certificates and driver's licenses to meet new minimum Federal standards in order to be accepted by a Federal agency for any official purpose. Minimum standards would be established for proof and verification of identity by the applicant, and to make the documents themselves more resistant to counterfeiting and tampering. The amendment also would require minimum standards for the processing of applications to address a widely recognized and growing problem of fraud within the offices that issue licenses and birth certificates, including the Arizona Department of Transportation's Motor Vehicle Division. The amendment would authorize grants to the States to assist them in meeting the new standards and to help States computerize and match their birth and death records. To improve the security of social security numbers, the amendment would restrict the number of replacement cards that can be issued to an individual; require verification of records used to obtain an original social security card; and add death, fraud, and work authorization indicators to the social security number verification system. DHS and the Social Security Administration would also be tasked to take other steps to safeguard social security cards from counterfeiting and tampering, and increase enforcement against the fraudulent use of social security cards. Today, incredibly, the Social Security Administration will issue any individual up to 52 replacement cards a year, a practice GAO has cited as increasing the potential for misuse and fraud. Roughly two-thirds of the 12.4 million social security cards issued by SSA in 2002 were replacement cards. I am also incredulous that the system SSA uses to verify social security numbers does not include notations for death, fraud, or work authorization. Employers often use the system to verify the social security number of new employees. Because there is no notation on the records for death, a social security number for a decreased individual used fraudulently by another person will be verified as valid. This amendment would not mandate a national ID card. It would not infringe upon the right of the States to determine who can get a driver's license. It would not establish a national database with information on all drivers. And it would prohibit the establishment of a single design for driver's licenses and birth certificates. We believe it fulfills the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission without trampling on States' rights, privacy, or civil liberties. We must face the fact, however, that rightly or wrongly, the driver's license is the basic form of ID in the United States. We use it to board airplanes, to purchase alcohol and cigarettes, to cash checks, and for a host of other purposes. We cannot ignore that the security of driver's licenses and State-issued ID cards affect homeland security. And we cannot ignore that driver's licenses can and indeed have been used as an enabler for terrorism. There is a legitimate Federal role in establishing minimum standards for these documents. As the 9/11 Commission noted in its report, ``At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists.'' Making these documents more secure will help make our country more secure, and help prevent another terrorist attack on our country. In closing, this amendment was carefully crafted to translate the commission recommendations into legislative language. I applaud the work of the commission and fully believe that the reforms they suggest in this section of their report will go a long way towards increasing the security and safety of all Americans. The Commission released their report in late July. Their recommendations are taking on a life of their own. The Commission report is the No. 1 nonfiction bestseller on both the New York Times and the Washington Post bestsellers list. The public is taking their recommendations very seriously, and so too should we. The people will hold us accountable for our failure if we don't enact these recommendations. I would like to point out a couple of additional facts. Today, each State has a different set of requirements for driver's licenses. Some States allow more than 30 different documents to be used by applicants as proof of identity. How in the world can an employee at the department of motor vehicles be expected to verify the authenticity of the applicant? I am amazed what some States will accept as proof of identity in supporting documents. For example, one State allows a picture from a high school yearbook to be used as one form of identification. Another State allows the school report card to be used as long as it is less than 1 year old. A third allows a snowmobile permit to be used as a form of identification. Several States allow permits for concealed weapons to be used in getting a driver's license. One State still has licenses without a photograph of the license holder. I recognize that we are on very interesting ground on this issue. On the one hand, we are trying to balance people's civil liberties. We are trying to make sure everyone has a right to privacy. We are trying to make sure there is no national database which would be used to follow people around the country. At the same time, if someone can fraudulently obtain a driver's license and that driver's license is used in obtaining access to places where acts of terror can be committed, we have to try to see that does not happen. What we have done with this amendment is try to carefully balance the requirement for some better way of assuring identity and at the same time not infringe on Americans' civil liberties. That is why I believe this amendment probably will be the subject of some debate and discussion and will probably require a recorded vote. If somebody has a better idea, I would like very much to hear it, but I do not know that there is a better idea. We have done extensive research, have had extensive discussions and an extensive amount of investigation building on the 9/11 Commission's findings and recommendations. It seems to me that this is a reasonable approach. But to have the status quo in America where people can easily and fraudulently acquire identification which allows them then to be able to commit acts of sabotage, espionage, or terror and risk the lives of others is not a status quo by which I think we can abide. I thank my colleagues for their consideration. I look forward to the debate. If the distinguished manager would perhaps illuminate as to how she would like to handle this particular amendment, I would be agreeable to whatever the manager's procedure would be.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the manager. At this time I will not be proposing a further amendment.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside to allow Senator Lautenberg to propose an amendment and to speak for no longer than 10 minutes, at which time I will return to my amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. McCAIN. That clears up the parliamentary situation. I thank my friend from Montana. I know how involved he has been on this issue. I was referring back to a hearing we had in 1997 on this issue. I do thank him. This compromise is certainly not what he wanted and it is not what I wanted. I also thank Senator Lott for his good offices in helping, as well as the cooperation of the staffs, as well as that of Senator Hollings and his staff. Again, this is not what I wanted. This is not what Senator Burns wanted. But this is a way to achieve the primary recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, which is to free up spectrum for first responders. I will not quote again because I do not have it right here, but it is important we get this spectrum to our public safety and first responders so they will be able to communicate in case of a disaster or attack. The compromise amendment modifies my proposal by eliminating the requirement that all broadcasters vacate the analog spectrum by a date certain. Significantly, this compromise still provides the certainty that public safety was seeking, that they will receive the spectrum they were promised in 1997 by January 1, 2008. This was not my preference on how to proceed. I never believed in treating broadcasters differently. However, this amendment does so by requiring broadcasters on channels 62 through 69 to vacate their spectrum if there is a bona fide request made by public safety. The NAB is supporting this amendment and has decided to treat its members differently. This approach has been agreed to by Senators Burns, Hollings, and myself. Again, it was not my preference to proceed in this discriminatory manner, but in the interest of ensuring passage this year, I thought this was a positive step for public safety. However, I remind my colleagues this disparate treatment should be reviewed by the FCC this year. The FCC can remedy this discriminating treatment by completing its work toward ending the DTV transition. I urge the FCC to do so. I also urge the incoming chairman, Senator Stevens, and Chairman Barton of the Commerce Committee in the House to review this discriminatory treatment and the DTV transition upon Congress's return in January. Lastly, I remind my colleagues that this approach does not provide public safety the much needed money for equipment or consumers, a subsidy to ensure all over-the-air viewers can continue to view television. It was not my preference to strand public safety or consumers in this manner. I hope in the near term Congress will readdress this need to support public safety equipment funding. I thank my colleagues. Mr. President, I do not believe there would be any further debate. I think the Senator from Montana would agree to have a voice vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe under the previous unanimous consent agreement that Senator Lautenberg's amendment will be set aside and we will return to the consideration of my amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.