Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I know the able Senator from North Dakota has been waiting, but I want to take a moment, with his indulgence. I take this opportunity to wish the very able and distinguished Senator from West Virginia, and my good friend, Robert C. Byrd, a very happy birthday. There is no doubt that this institution is a better and stronger place because of not only his presence but his leadership and influence in helping to shape the Senate over decades. We are all enormously appreciative and grateful to him for that. He carries the Constitution in his pocket. He understands the constitutional structure of our Nation and the role of the Senate within that constitutional structure. I have always greatly admired the fact that he is what I would call a constitutionalist. He understands that we have to have strong institutions in order to make representative democracy work. Without those strong institutions, we are in great danger of losing our liberties and the balance that has served this Republic so well for more than two centuries. I join my colleagues and pay respect to him today on his birthday. In today's New York Times, there is a wonderful story about the distinguished Senator. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES. It is headlined: ``Byrd, at 85, Fills the Forum With Romans and Wrath.'' They should have gone on and added one other thing. They should have said ``and wisdom,'' because that is exactly what he has provided to all of us. We are appreciative to him for it, and we wish him a happy birthday, and many more.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the legislation before the Senate, H.R. 4883, the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 2002, includes important provisions to reauthorize the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, NCBO. This office which was first established in 1992 pursuant to Public Law 102-567, has been the focal point for all of NOAA's activities within the Chesapeake Bay watershed and a vital part of the effort to achieve the long-term goal of the Bay Program--restoring the Bay's living resources to healthy and balanced levels. During the past 10 years, the NCBO has made great strides in realizing the objectives of the NOAA Authorization Act of 1992 and the overall Bay Program living resource goals. Working with other Bay Program partners, important progress has been made in surveying and assessing fishery resources in the Bay, developing fishery management plans for selected species, undertaking habitat restoration projects, removing barriers to fish passage, and undertaking important remote sensing and data analysis activities. But NOAA's responsibilities to the Bay restoration effort are far from complete. Some populations of major species of fish and shellfish in Chesapeake Bay such as shad and oysters, remain severely depressed, while others, such as blue crab are at risk. Baywide, some 16 of 25 ecologically important species are in decline or severe decline, due to disease, habitat loss, overfishing and other factors. The underwater grasses that once sustained these fisheries are only at a fraction of their historic levels. Research and monitoring must be continued and enhanced to track living resource trends, evaluate the responses of the estuary's biota to changes in their environment and establish clear management goals and progress indicators for restoring the productivity, diversity and abundance of these species. Likewise, education to improve understanding by elementary and secondary students and teachers of the living resources in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem is a top priority. In order to ensure NOAA's continued full participation in the Bay's restoration and in meeting with goals and objectives of Chesapeake 2000, in the 106th Congress I introduced legislation, together with several of my colleagues, to reauthorize the NOAA Bay Program office and provide the office with additional resources and authority. No action was taken on that legislation so in the 107th Congress, Senators Warner, Mikulski, Allen and I introduced new legislation to reauthorize the NCBO. A similar measure was introduced in the House by Representative Gilchrest and the entire Maryland House delegation and provisions of these bills are included in section 401 of the legislation before us. The provisions authorize and direct NOAA to undertake a special 5-year study, in cooperation with the scientific community of the Chesapeake Bay and appropriate other Federal agencies, to develop the knowledge base required for understanding multispecies interactions and developing multispecies management plans. NOAA is also authorized to carry out a small-scale fishery and habitat restoration grant and technical assistance program to help citizens organizations and local governments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed undertake habitat, fish, and shellfish restoration projects. The legislation authorizes $6 million a year specifically to fund the NOAA Chesapeake Bay office and carry out these two activities. And I want to emphasize that this authorization level is intended to address only NCBO's base budget and these two initiatives and that additional funds are provided for the work that the NCBO conducts in oyster reef restoration, oyster disease research, education and training and blue crab research. I am disappointed however that the legislation did not include two other provisions which we sought to create an internet-based Coastal Predictions Center for the Chesapeake Bay and to formally authorize the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office's Bay Watershed Education and Training, B- WET, Program that we established last year. Moreover, it is critical that the funding levels for the NOAA Bay Program activities continue to grow to meet these needs and NOAA's responsibilities in oyster and SAV restoration efforts, among other initiatives. If we are to achieve the ultimate, long-term goal of the Bay Program--protecting, restoring and maintaining the health of the living resources of the Bay--additional financial resources must be provided. I plan to introduce new legislation in the 108th Congress to address these shortcomings and look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee in this regard.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I was unable to be on the floor the day that we paid tribute to our colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone. I would like to take just a few moments this evening. Like my colleagues, I was deeply saddened over the tragic death in a plane crash of our colleague, Paul Wellstone, his wife Sheila, his daughter, several members of his staff, and the plane's pilots. His death is a grievous loss to those members of his family who survived, to the people of Minnesota, whom he served so faithfully and honorably, to his colleagues in the Senate, and to the Nation. Paul Wellstone lived the American dream. His parents came to this country as immigrants. He excelled in school. He earned both his B.A. and his doctorate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He went straight from the University of North Carolina to Carleton College in Northfield, MN, as a young professor, where he taught for more than two decades. Minnesota became home to him and his family. In 1990, the people of his State sent him to the Senate; and in 1996, they voted to send him back for another term. Paul Wellstone was a person of deeply held convictions, a dedicated fighter for working families. He fought with passion for his principles but was also deeply respectful of those who disagreed with him. He was profoundly committed to the democratic political institutions that he had studied in his youth, that he taught to so many students over the years, and that, by his own direct engagement in our Nation's politics, he brought to life. We feel a great loss in the death of this courageous fighter for a just and decent America, and we will seek to honor his memory by carrying forward in the spirit in which he lived and gave his life. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I urge Members to vote in favor of invoking cloture. I am not quite sure why we are doing the cloture vote, but in any event, so we can get to the legislation and pass it-- this is worthy legislation--I hope the Senate will first impose cloture, and then, under the unanimous consent agreement, we would go to a final vote on the legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I urge Members to vote in favor of invoking cloture. I am not quite sure why we are doing the cloture vote, but in any event, so we can get to the legislation and pass it-- this is worthy legislation--I hope the Senate will first impose cloture, and then, under the unanimous consent agreement, we would go to a final vote on the legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I was unable to be on the floor the day that we paid tribute to our colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone. I would like to take just a few moments this evening. Like my colleagues, I was deeply saddened over the tragic death in a plane crash of our colleague, Paul Wellstone, his wife Sheila, his daughter, several members of his staff, and the plane's pilots. His death is a grievous loss to those members of his family who survived, to the people of Minnesota, whom he served so faithfully and honorably, to his colleagues in the Senate, and to the Nation. Paul Wellstone lived the American dream. His parents came to this country as immigrants. He excelled in school. He earned both his B.A. and his doctorate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He went straight from the University of North Carolina to Carleton College in Northfield, MN, as a young professor, where he taught for more than two decades. Minnesota became home to him and his family. In 1990, the people of his State sent him to the Senate; and in 1996, they voted to send him back for another term. Paul Wellstone was a person of deeply held convictions, a dedicated fighter for working families. He fought with passion for his principles but was also deeply respectful of those who disagreed with him. He was profoundly committed to the democratic political institutions that he had studied in his youth, that he taught to so many students over the years, and that, by his own direct engagement in our Nation's politics, he brought to life. We feel a great loss in the death of this courageous fighter for a just and decent America, and we will seek to honor his memory by carrying forward in the spirit in which he lived and gave his life. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the editorial in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES. I am taken aback by the notion that we are not going to be able to go to this legislation by some unanimous consent, that we are going to have to invoke cloture, and all the rest of it. I do not quite understand where that opposition is coming from. In fact, it passed the House on a voice vote without any opposition whatever expressed over on the House side. And this is something that has been laboriously worked over under the very effective leadership of my very distinguished and able colleague from Connecticut. I was operating under the assumption that we would be able to go to it in short order. People will want to make some speeches and explanatory statements, I would assume, although I don't see any need for any lengthy debate or a long involvement of time in order to finally conclude this legislation.

Mr. SARBANES. One paragraph follows right along with what the able Senator from North Dakota was bringing to our attention. I want to quote it: Most alarming is that the version of the legislation passed by the House on Wednesday--with the Senate apparently soon to follow--is a 500-page, 11th hour rewrite few lawmakers have read and perhaps none fully understands.

Mr. SARBANES. This morning the Baltimore Sun has an editorial--they entitled it ``Homeland Insecurity''--discussing this legislation.

Mr. SARBANES. Continuing: New snakes slither out daily, but doubtless many will remain hidden until long after the measure is enacted into law.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield further for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. I missed that. But that is just another example of what may well be stacked away--it is not as though this is simply or straightforwardly a revision or an alteration of provisions directly related to homeland security which we have been dealing with here, and so there have been some changes or modifications. As I understand it, it is becoming increasingly evident that there are a number of provisions in here that have nothing to do with homeland security. Is that the Senator's understanding?

Mr. SARBANES. I say to the distinguished Senator, I was not even aware of that one. That one has not yet risen to the level of being covered in these newspaper stories.

Mr. SARBANES. I will quote this: First, the basic concept is flawed. Combining 22 separate departments and agencies with nearly 200,000 employees into one super agency is a recipe for bureaucratic chaos that will distract workers from their security duties, rather than sharpen their focus. New bosses, new locations, new personnel rules, new rivalries, new turf battles--these are the issues that will most concern workers in the years just ahead. How helpful is that? The recent squabble between the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, neither of which is to be included in the new Department, demonstrates there is little chance of blending separate agencies to eliminate overlapping, and clarifying control can be anything but a bloody task. Then they go on to say: Union rights and other worker protections will be stripped from the employees of the new Department because the President says he needs new flexibility to hire, fire, and move people around. No convincing national security rationale has been offered to justify this broad power grab. The problems inherent in this legislation, I have come to the conclusion, will divert focus, energy, and attention from the substantive challenge of providing homeland security to this kind of a procedural fight. They are going to have to get a new location, new organization. They are going to be spending all their time on getting the boxes on the chart instead of focusing on the substance of the job that confronts them.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. May I have this counted against my time under cloture?

Mr. SARBANES. I ask the distinguished Senator from West Virginia: In July, the Brookings Institution issued a report concerning this reorganization, and they said the following, and I am quoting from them now: Any fundamental reorganization represents a huge managerial undertaking, one that becomes ever more daunting as the number of agencies to be included increases. The danger is that top managers will be preoccupied for months, if not years, with getting the reorganization right, thus giving insufficient attention to their real job, taking concrete action to counter the terrorist threat at home. This Brookings report advocated some consolidation of agencies, but it proposed a much smaller, more streamlined consolidation, and the report went on to say: ``Reorganization is not a panacea. In fact, there is a risk that reorganization could interfere with, rather than enhance, homeland security tasks.'' Certainly, changes should be made only when there is a compelling case that consolidation offers clear benefits. I supported a proposal--and this leads up to my question--that the Senator from West Virginia offered earlier in the consideration of this issue, which would have undertaken to do a reorganization, but would have phased it and would have brought it back at periodic times for further scrutiny, examination, and implementation by the Congress. Was that the approach which the Senator had taken?

Mr. SARBANES. Secondly, I think that review process is more likely, far more likely, to produce beneficial results, because as the Senator said earlier today, the more scrutiny and discussion you have, the higher the likelihood--not a guarantee, but the higher the likelihood-- that you will have a better result. As I have listened to the Senator over these weeks of the debate, I have increasingly come to have very deep concerns about what we are doing with this legislation. I feel for the Senator when he says people are not--even now, as we near the last hour, focusing fully on the implications and the consequences of what we are discussing. Back in September, the Baltimore Sun published an editorial, and I want to read a couple of paragraphs from it. This is from September 23 of this year: Months of debate have made clear that this bureaucratic boondoggle offers no promise of making the homeland more secure. Worse, it takes the focus off the need for tighter oversight of the Nation's security systems. President Bush offered the most sweeping government reorganization in a half a century, largely as a political and public relations tactic. He was trying to counter Senate Democrats who were advancing similar legislation of their own. He timed the unveiling of his plan to drown out the testimony of FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, who was blowing the whistle on the security failures of her hidebound agency that blinded it to the clues of the September 11 attacks. Shifting 22 Federal agencies and 170,000 workers into a new department will cost billions but will do nothing to solve the problems agent Rowley addressed. What is needed is greater sharing, coordination and synthesis of the security information collected by the myriad agencies. But this new department will not even include the FBI and the CIA which are the two premier intelligence gatherers. Nor is there any guarantee that greater sharing would take place between them if they were together. I think this is right on point and parallels much of what the Senator, as I understand it, has been arguing.

Mr. SARBANES. And that is exactly what we are confronted with here. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. It is sweeping in its dimension.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?