Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I am about ready to make another motion pertaining to the bill from the subcommittee that the distinguished Senator from Mississippi chairs. I want to point out that the military construction bill, as I said, has the moneys for the immediate repair and assistance to the people who have been severely harmed in the wake of these hurricanes. And we would like to get that, too, before the Senate. So unless the Senator has some objection--

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the request of the Senator from Iowa is that we amend the conference report. The conference report contains a directed scoring concept that we put in there to assure the Senator that the program that he authored, against which we have sought to offset some of the budget authority required for this military construction bill, would be taken so we could proceed with that program. The drought program is not specifically authorized by law. The House of Representatives required, as is their right, an offset to the moneys that would be appropriated within the military construction bill for the drought program. And it was the House of Representatives that made this proposal. In conference we did as I said, put in a directed scoring provision, and it was the directed scoring provision that the staff of the Senator from Iowa requested. Now, it is that provision the Senator is using as a basis for objecting to consider even the homeland security bill. The homeland security bill does not have the drought program. He has objected to taking up the homeland security bill because we will not change the military construction bill. Now, to me, in view of the crisis that faces this country, particularly in regard to the use of FEMA funds, I find that appalling--just appalling. And I am going to come back again and again and again. I repeat the request. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we place before the Senate the homeland security bill. It does not contain the drought provisions. It does not contain the provision the Senator objects to. I know of no other Senator who is objecting to that bill. So I ask unanimous consent it be brought before the Senate and the current procedure be put aside so we may consider it.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, now to the military construction bill. The President has asked us on repeated occasions to bring matters before the Senate and the Congress as a whole to deal with those disasters caused by the hurricanes. Those hurricanes came so fast, as we got one request, we got another request, we got another request, so we decided to put them all together and move them all. I credit the wisdom of the distinguished chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Chairman Bill Young, for the ingenuity in doing that because we might have been facing separate bills on all of those supplemental requests had we not put them all together. We requested the Military Construction Subcommittee in conference to allow us to add that coalition, that combination of those hurricane supplementals, to put them on that bill. That military construction bill passed both Houses. And obviously that is the quickest way to get the money to Florida and those other States. That money, some $9.1 billion in particular for the hurricane areas, is of extreme importance. I point out that in that bill is directed scoring that shows the provision we put in this bill to obtain the budget authority that we did not have available to our committees--we borrowed in effect from a program that has budget authorities extending out until 2012--we have a provision in this bill that says that program cannot be impacted by this offset from now until the year 2007. So there is ample time to deal with how we adjust, if we wish to, the impact of this money on the program that Senator Harkin authored. That offset is $2.8 billion against a program that is currently estimated to cost $8.9 billion, notwithstanding the fact that its original estimate was $2 billion. But it won't affect the program. The Senator has 2 years before there will be any diminution at all. No one would be hurt in any way. This is an accounting mechanism. We used budget authority and outlays. We had the outlays. We need the budget authority. So we borrowed, as we did 2 years ago, from that fund. It is an enormous fund, a noncontributory, mandatory program that builds and builds and builds. I think the Senator has called attention sufficiently to this program. Many of us are going to examine that program in real depth. I know of no other program, even Medicare, that has contributions from the public at large, from people who are benefited by employees. It is not just taking of money directly from the taxpayers' funds, from the Treasury, and spending it without regard to any consideration at all as to cost. Again, this MILCON bill must pass. I ask unanimous consent that the existing procedure for cloture on the FSC bill be put aside so that H.R. 4837 may be placed before the Senate for the purpose of considering it at this time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much do I have left of my hour?

Mr. STEVENS. I reserve the remainder of my time. I will be back.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania is correct. We have heard no objection. As a matter of fact, we have a wrap-up procedure, is what we call it--and the Senator is familiar with that-- at the end of each legislative day. This Homeland Security bill was in that. We know that absolutely no one objected to the Homeland Security bill in the first instance and later the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, came back and objected. So this bill is held up apparently because the Senator from Iowa wanted to have some other thing in the way of getting on Military Construction. I am happy to renew the request.

Mr. STEVENS. I know of no objection any Senator has raised to the Homeland Security bill. The Senator from Pennsylvania is absolutely correct about that. I renew the request, and that is that we set aside the current cloture procedure and that the Homeland Security bill be laid before the Senate, H.R. 4567; that the conference report be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. The House passed the military construction appropriations bill as well as the homeland security bill. No one voted against the bills. The first one was 374-0 and the second was 368-0. Military construction contains $2.8 billion for the drought and $11.6 billion for disasters which includes the hurricanes. This bill affects all our States with farms that are suffering from the drought and it helps states like Florida and Alabama that were in the path of the hurricanes. FEMA will likely run out of money tonight, Saturday, October 9. On October 1 FEMA had $836 million which included a $500 million carryover from FY 2004 and a $336 million apportionment under the continuing resolution. That means they get 51 days worth of cash since the CR takes us through November 20. But FEMA tells me that they burn through this money at approximately $65 million to $79 million a day. The balance in the disaster, fund yesterday, Friday, October 8, was only $150 million. The fund runs dry tonight. It is true they can re-apportion under the CR, which means they can transfer funds from other areas but it will have to be taken from places like our Federal air marshals, air cargo inspections, port security, and more. On homeland, many believe we will be attacked before the election. There is a continuing resolution in affect until November 20 but getting this bill increases much of the effort we are making to protect the United States. It also has new programs that cannot be started until we pass this bill. Some of the program I refer to are radiations detection, aviation security technology, border surveillance, additional detention and removal programs. Getting more screeners at airports is on hold. All first responder grant allocations would be put on hold. The Coast Guard will not be able to re-engine the HH-65 helicopter for at least 6 months, causing the Coast Guard to continue to experience alarming rates of engine failures. At current funding levels, there are insufficient funds to support the Coast Guard's increased force presence in Iraq port security units, patrol boats, and security forces on oil rigs. Cargo screening will remain only at current levels--we will forgo a tripling of cargo screening on passenger aircraft. Research and development of new technologies for cargo security will be delayed. TSA will not hire replacement screeners to fill vacancies at airports, causing longer lines at airports, particularly around the holiday period. TSA will delay airport modifications to install explosive detection devices to screen for explosives in carry-on baggage as recommended by the 9/11 Commission. The department will not be able to hire additional Federal air marshals, FAMs and, in fact, may have to lay off FAMs that they have on staff, up to 500. This bill includes significant increases in the intelligence capabilities of the department. A continuing resolution will prevent that expansion from taking place leaving the nation at risk. Under a continuing resolution the Transportation Security Administration has very little funding for rail and transit security. All of the additional funding available for inspectors, canine teams, research and other activities is in the fiscal year 2005 appropriation. None of the additional funding for letters of intent for airport security modifications will be available. Seven hundred and ninety-two new Coast Guard personnel will not be hired to enforce maritime security plans. It prevents interoperable communications and personal protective equipment from reaching rural and smaller communities. Fire departments will remain critically understaffed without the implementation of the SAFER Act. The biowatch program will not be expanded in major urban areas, affecting our ability to detect the release of biological agents in the air. It stops the procurement of 250 additional radiation detection/ inspection systems. It delays procurement of border surveillance systems to monitor and defend U.S. borders. It delays Container Security Initiative, CSI needed to stay on schedule to add up 22 more ports to existing 25. It delays establishment of fugitive operation teams and hinders immigration enforcement--limiting detention and arrest operations of criminal alien fugitives and hindering our ability to keep jailed aliens from being released into our communities. It delays staffing up for overseas operations to ensure no visas are granted to foreign visitors who pose a security risk. It delays adding 750 beds to hold alien detainees, allowing 5,000 deportable aliens to stay in our communities. It delays support to reduce the backlog in immigration prosecutions. Delaying the bill delay this Nation's security. Delaying the bill delays help to those that are suffering from the after-affects of numerous hurricanes. Delaying the bill will delay much needed drought assistance. Mr. President, I am here because the Military Construction appropriations bill, as well as Homeland Security appropriations bill, has passed the House. Both of them have passed the House. I know we are not supposed to talk about the vote over there, particularly about how many people voted. But I think we can say consistent with the rules that each one of these bills was passed unanimously with not one single opponent. Why? Because the Military Construction bill contains $2.8 billion to the drought program and $11.6 billion for the disasters, particularly those relating to the hurricanes in the Florida area. This bill will affect all of the States that have farms that are suffering from drought. It certainly helps the Florida area and Alabama--particularly in the path of those hurricanes. But the reason I have come to the floor now to talk to the Senate is I was reliably informed this afternoon that FEMA runs out of money tonight. I want to say that again. I hope Senators will listen. FEMA runs out of money tonight. There will be no more payments made in Florida or Alabama. I am told people down there are living in tents. The temperature is rising. They are being given buckets of ice to try to keep cool. They have patients being moved from medical facilities. They are in temporary quarters. This is probably the worst series of storms in the history of this country. On October 1, FEMA had $836 million. That included a $500 million carryover from 2004, and they were allocated $336 million under the continuing resolution we passed that expires November 20. As of tonight, that money is gone. This really is an emergency now. We have been delayed for one reason or another as we tried to get these bills passed. There were riders offered on the bill in both Houses. We tried to work those out in conference. I know there are some people who are disturbed about some of the riders that weren't included. These were legislative riders that did not pertain to the bills themselves, and there are some that were accepted. But we have to get this bill done and to the President as quickly as possible. This covers everything you can think about in terms of the Homeland Security bill--Federal air marshals, air cargo inspections, port security. As I said, we have a continuing resolution in effect until November 20. As far as the FEMA money, it is gone. I think we have an absolute obligation to these people who are providing the security for this country to see to it that they get their money on time. We were unable to get these bills done by the end of the fiscal year, which was September 30, because we had no budget resolution. We have been working against all sorts of impediments in the appropriations process this year. We have a number of things in this bill that are absolutely necessary. We have funds for the Coast Guard, for instance. Many people don't realize the Coast Guard has a presence in Iraq. They have port security units and patrol boats. They have security forces near the oil rigs over there. They are part of our forces over there. They still also have this enormous problem in the United States. They need to increase money. The continuing resolution continues all of these agencies at the level of money approved by Congress in 2003 for the 2004 period. This is the first quarter of 2005. The money is for cargo screening. That level of demand has increased. We forego a tripling of cargo screening on passenger aircraft by virtue of the bill that was passed. We have enormous demands now by the Transportation Security Agency to fill vacancies in airports. There will be longer lines at airports if we don't get this money out to them. The Department also has the Federal air marshals. I am told that they may have to lay off up to 500 Federal air marshals because they are traveling under that continuing resolution. Their moneys are allocated on the basis of what we thought was necessary in the fall of 2003. This is money for 2005. It must start now. Again, I don't understand why we can't vote tonight. The House took up these bills and passed them within 2 hours. Each one passed the House within 2 hours because they recognized the need for this money. Now I am told we may not vote until Monday or Tuesday on these bills. I am sort of aggravated. These bills are necessary. I would like to identify the people who are objecting to passage of these bills tonight. I hope they come to the floor and defend themselves. I sat in the Chair and presided over the Senate this morning, and I heard the distinguished minority leader say we cannot leave until these bills pass. We cannot go into recess and go back for the election process until these bills are passed. That should be the bipartisan position of this Senate. Forget these minute details about antagonism because some person's ego has been bruised because we have not done exactly what they want on these bills. We all have to be bigger than that. It is time to pass these bills. These delays on this bill affect national security. There is no question that homeland security is the second line of defense now. Our first line of defense is protecting our perimeter. But we have national security as No. 1. We spent weeks on the Homeland Security bill. Now we are refusing to provide the money which we came to total agreement on which they need for next year. It is being delayed. I don't understand that at all. I particularly don't understand why any Member in the Senate is opposing these bills when it was unanimously approved. Not one voice was raised against these bills in the other House. We represent the same constituents. On what basis does anyone want to oppose these bills, either for the hurricane, military construction, or Homeland Security? I am standing ready. Anyone who wants to debate them, I will be here all night. I want these bills passed. They have to pass. There is no reason why they should not pass. I am pleased to explain any portion of these bills to any Member tonight, but I don't know why we can't come here and vote for these bills. Someone is objecting somewhere and I would like to find out who it is because I think the whole world--I hope someone is watching, anyway--will ask why. Why can't we do what the House did and approve the bills after such hard work we put in? As I said, it has been totally bipartisan. Not one word in the House from either party was raised against these bills. I will be back. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have received this letter from Tom Ridge, who is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I brought this to the Senate floor because, as I stated previously, I was informed that tonight the moneys for distribution in the hurricane area that FEMA supports will expire. We have to pass the MilCon bill and we have to pass the Homeland Security bill as rapidly as possible. We do not have copies of the intelligence bill that was passed. All of us have had requests for it. I ask unanimous consent that the intelligence reform bill, S. 2845, be printed as passed so we may distribute copies of that and so that the conference committee can have copies of that bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. My friend from Hawaii was on the floor first. Does he wish to speak on this matter?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the Senator from Florida be recognized. He has kindly agreed to let me proceed because I am due at a conference committee meeting in 5 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment realigns responsibility for intelligence appropriations from the Appropriations Committee to the Intelligence Committee. This includes all funding relating to intelligence, national, joint military programs, and tactical military funding and classified intelligence matters as in FBI and other Government agencies. I think it would be a mistake to adopt this amendment. First, it ignores the history of the appropriations process and the lessons we have learned in both Houses of Congress. In 1865, the House created the Appropriations Committee. The Senate followed suit in 1867. Then from 1867 to 1885, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees were stripped of their control over appropriations as one authorization committee after another gained the authority to report appropriations. In 1885, both Houses realized this ad hoc approach was detrimental, and by 1922 both the House and Senate had reinvested appropriations authority back into one committee in each House. History has proven that moving appropriations to authorization committees creates a decentralized appropriations process that leads to greater spending and less accountability. That would be even more so today under the Budget Act. In 1910, Congressman James Tawney, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee from 1905 to 1911, said: The division of jurisdiction and responsibility in the matter of initiating appropriations has contributed more than any single cause to the enormous increase in the appropriations during recent years. Congressman Tawney's conclusions were backed up by a 1987 study that found expenditures for rivers and harbors between 1877 and 1885 rose sharply after the authorizing committee gained the right to appropriate. A book published in 1989 by Charles Stewart III contains similar findings. Even after accounting for price changes, economics, population, and territorial growth, wars and major programmatic changes sponsored by the authorizing committee, Mr. Stewart found the greater decentralization of the appropriations between 1877 and 1885 led to greater spending. Contrast those to the findings of a 1992 study conducted by James F. Kogan who found that deficits are rare and nonexistent when spending jurisdiction lies within the committee. Let me go now to the 9/11 Commission recommendations. They are not only ill informed, but they are also unfounded. Not one line in the Commission's report stated that the Senate and House Appropriations Committees were not performing effective intelligence oversight--not one line. Consolidating appropriations and authorization for intelligence matters will undermine nearly 140 years of congressional tradition and ignore our years of experience in such matters. I have heard some grumblings about how those of us who oppose provisions in this legislation are merely protecting turf. I am not interested in turf. I am interested in function as well as effective oversight. You cannot move the responsibilities for appropriations and authorizations around without having a real impact on function. And you certainly should not make recommendations that aim to do that without even discussing those broad, sweeping changes with the Members of Congress who are familiar with and part of the appropriations process. My colleague from Hawaii has discussed this at length. I don't want to be redundant, but Dr. Hamre, whom he quoted, is not alone in his assessment that the budget issues are overemphasized when policy and appropriations are jointly considered. Listen to this. Even the 9/11 Commission acknowledged that risk on page 421 of their report, where they write: We also recommend that the Intelligence Committee should have a subcommittee specifically dedicated to oversight, freed from the consuming responsibility of working on the budget. If budget issues pose such all-consuming risk to the entire oversight process, it is the view of this Senator that they should be used within a separate committee that would fully address them. This would encourage collaboration and coordination, the hallmarks of our Government system. The legislative appropriations process works best where there is friction between the committees and bodies of Congress. That is what the Founding Fathers believed in, a system of checks and balances. It is our suggestion that the organizations of our Government are founded upon that concept, and this amendment doesn't reflect that philosophy. The insights I offer are not an attempt to protect turf. They are recommendations I would have given to the 9/11 Commission had they talked to me or to my colleague from Hawaii. Given my 36 years in the Senate, 8 of which I have spent as chairman or ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, I think they are very important in this debate. Mr. President, I will speak against this amendment. I have serious concerns about any effort that would move appropriations responsibilities from the Appropriations Committee to the new Intelligence Committee. I have spent over 30 years working on defense and intelligence matters. I have served as the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee for 6 years. Those experiences give me a unique perspective on the appropriations process, intelligence organizations, national security and defense. Based on that experience, I am very concerned about any effort that would combine appropriations and policy responsibilities and place them under the jurisdiction of a single committee. Collapsing appropriations and policy functions and housing them in the new Intelligence Committee would be a mistake. First, it ignores the history of the appropriations process and the lessons we have learned in both Houses of Congress. In 1865, the House created the Appropriations Committee. The Senate followed suit in 1867. Then, from 1867 to 1885 the House and Senate Appropriations Committees were stripped of their control over appropriations as one authorization committee after another gained the authority to report appropriations. In 1885 both Houses realized that this ad hoc approach was detrimental, and by 1922, both the House and Senate had vested appropriations authority back in one committee. History has proven that moving appropriations to authorization committees creates a decentralized appropriations process. And that leads to greater spending and less accountability. In 1910, Congressman James Tawney, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee from 1905 to 1911, said the ``division of jurisdiction and responsibility in the matter of initiating appropriations has contributed more than any single cause to the enormous increase in appropriations during recent years.'' Congressman Tawney's conclusions were backed up by a 1987 study that found that expenditures for rivers and harbors and agriculture between 1877 and 1885 ``rose sharply after authorizing committees gained the right to appropriate.'' A book published in 1989 by Charles H. Stewart III contained similar findings. Even after accounting for price changes; economic, population, and territorial growth; wars; and major programmatic changes sponsored by the authorizing committees, Mr. Stewart found that greater decentralization of the appropriations process between 1877 and 1885 led to greater spending. Contrast those findings with a 1992 study conducted by John F. Cogan that found deficits are rare or nonexistent when spending jurisdiction lies within the Appropriations Committee, and I think you will agree, Mr. President, that we are better off with a centralized appropriations process. Of course, when you look at how the 9/11 Commission conducted its investigation, it's not surprising that their recommendations ignore this history. Not one of the 9/11 commissioners or 9/11 commission staff members interviewed Senator Inouye or me about intelligence oversight. Nor did they interview the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House Appropriations Committee. So, I do not find it surprising that their recommendations ignore decades of ``lessons learned'' by the House and the Senate. But, I do find it difficult to understand how the Commission could recommend a major realignment of Congressional organization and attempt to change the process for conducting Congressional business without ever speaking to any of the Members of Congress responsible for the appropriations process. The 9/11 Commission's recommendations are not only ill-informed, they are also unfounded. Not one line in the Commission's report stated that the Senate and House Appropriations Committees were not performing effective intelligence oversight Not one line! And consolidating appropriations and authorization for intelligence matters would undermine nearly 140 years of Congressional tradition and would ignore our years of experience with such matters. I have heard some grumblings about how those of us who oppose provisions in this legislation are merely protecting their ``turf.'' I'm not interested in ``turf.'' I am intensively interested in function as well as effective oversight. You can't move the responsibilities for appropriations and authorizations around without having a real impact on function. And you certainly shouldn't make recommendations that aim to do that without even discussing those broad and sweeping changes with the members of Congress who are familiar with and part of the appropriations process. If the 9/11 Commission had asked me about these recommendations I would have told them that Congress has tried to place policy and appropriations functions under the jurisdiction of one committee before, with poor results. We have found that mixing policy legislation with appropriations legislation is inefficient and more importantly, not supportive of the individual processes. Those past experiences led to rules in the House and Senate that institutionalized the separation of policy and appropriations functions. Every year, Congress needs to fulfill its appropriations responsibilities in a timely manner; if we don't, the government can't keep operating. But the appropriations timetable is completely at odds with the complex and controversial deliberations that surround most policy legislation. History has shown that combining policy and appropriations functions leads us down one of two paths: either Congress rushes policy deliberations in order to meet fiscal year deadlines and risks adopting bad policy or we must delay the timely passage of appropriations bills in the interest of debating policy issues and we risk disrupting government operations. Whichever path we follow we short-change one goal in order to fulfill the other. The 9/11 Commission hopes that if we combine policy and budget oversight in one committee, policy deliberations will guide our efforts. But my years of experience tell me it will have the opposite effect. Budget decisions will rule the committee and policy oversight will take a back seat. Former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre expressed concern about the dominance of budget issues in intelligence oversight when he testified before the Appropriations Committee a few weeks ago. He said: Frankly, the quality of congressional oversight is not good. It is not as strong as it needs to be. I think we are confusing it by this issue of consolidating authorizations and appropriations. I have said to the Armed Service Committees--I used to work there, as you know--that they have made a huge mistake thinking that they are powerful only by trying to do what you do, shape the dollars. There are reasons you have authorization committees. They are to set the broad trends and directions for the policy goals and to oversee the functioning of the Government. But they spend far too much time wanting to shape the way you appropriate little lines in the budget, and I think that is a mistake. You play a crucial and indispensable role. They play a crucial and indispensable role, but they are neglecting it, in my view, by putting too much time and attention on budget detail. I would like to see them spend far more time looking at the large purposes, the large policy directions, and overseeing the true functioning of these institutions. That is what I think was intended by having separate authorization and appropriations processes. They can be complementary, but during the last 20 years, frankly, they have been in conflict with each other. And I think that needs to change, and I will be glad to amplify on that further at another time. But Dr. Hamre is not alone in his assessment that budget issues are overemphasized when policy and appropriations are jointly considered. Even the 9/11 Commission acknowledged this risk. On page 421 of their report they write: We also recommend that the intelligence Committee should have a subcommittee specifically dedicated to oversight, freed from the consuming responsibility of working on the budget. If budget issues pose such an all-consuming risk to the entire oversight process, it is the view of this Senator that they should be housed within a separate committee that can fully address them, not delegated to subcommittee. This would encourage collaboration and coordination--hallmarks of our system of government. Those kinds of experiences suggest that the language included in this amendment is the wrong way to address the budget and policy issues facing our nation's intelligence community. Consolidating appropriations and authorization into one committee means fewer members of Congress and staff members will be looking at these complex issues--how does that improve Congressional oversight? It seems to me we would have less oversight, not more. The legislative and appropriations process works best when there is friction between committees and bodies of Congress. That is what the Founding Fathers believed in--a system of check and balances. Our Constitution and the organization of our government are founded on that concept, and this amendment does not reflect that philosophy. The insights I am offering are not attempts to protect ``turf.'' They are the recommendations that I would have offered had the 9/11 Commission interviewed me. Given my 36 years in the Senate 8 of which have been spent as chairman or ranking member of the Appropriations Committee--I think they are an important part of this debate.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, can this Senator be part of that colloquy?

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield to me on that?

Mr. STEVENS. I have a chart of the Department of Homeland Security summary of appropriations, and it shows the total amount is $38,840,000,000. The two items that are not in that jurisdiction that would come out total $11 billion. The total amount the homeland security committee will have is $22,945,000,000. Now, Mr. Ridge appeared before the Commerce Committee under the chairmanship of the Senator from Arizona only twice.

Mr. STEVENS. I am reliably informed the reason it went to the Commerce Committee in the first place was the Senator from Arizona wrote a memorandum for the Parliamentarian saying that is where it should be, in the Commerce Committee, because we have jurisdiction over all the means of transportation and all of the entities TSA deals with. Now, the Senator's committee--I am a member of that committee--will not have jurisdiction over railroads, trains, buses, boats, all of the entities that TSA affects. TSA has moved into the facilities owned by those entities. They have not built their own buildings; they have moved into those occupied by the airlines, buses, wherever. The conflict we have to resolve is between TSA and entities that provide the transportation. Now, if we are going to have a consolidation of jurisdiction, that is why we have done this, that is why the Senator from Arizona wrote the memorandum in the first place, because we have the jurisdiction over the means of transportation.

Mr. STEVENS. I asked the Senator from Maine a question. I have not received a response. I am not a part of this dialog. I will make my statement later. I really take offense at the attitude of the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. STEVENS. Let's keep the personalties out of it.

Mr. STEVENS. I do not shout as loud as the Senator from Arizona and then interrupt people.

Mr. STEVENS. I object. What was the request?

Mr. STEVENS. I still don't understand. Is the Senator now calling up the amendment on Commerce?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is an important amendment for the Senate. I hope Members will listen because the Transportation Security Agency is the one that manages basically the entities at the airports, the bus stations, wherever they may be where people enter into forms of transportation. All of those transportation means are under the jurisdiction of Commerce. I don't know about the rest of you, but I went to Nome one time and I found the Transportation Security Administration had moved into the Alaska Airlines terminal, owned by that airline, and said: Move out of the way. We have to put in these security devices. And they did that. They built a wall through that terminal and they proceeded to take it over. I have had more complaints about the Transportation Security Administration than I have any other entity since I have been in the Senate because of the way they impact the traveling public. I remind the Senate, there is a provision in the bill that authorized the Transportation Security Agency to transition to private enterprise when the time came that private enterprise could handle it. This is not a permanent Government entity. We sincerely believe that those involved in the transportation mechanisms should transition to the point where they, working with private enterprise, provide these functions. Right now these are temporary functions. We have provided Government employees to do it temporarily, not permanently. So this whole premise is that it should go over to the Governmental Affairs Committee--on which I am proud to serve and was once chairman--and they should oversee this entity, which we in Commerce want to see transition to become a part of the systems of transportation and not something maintained by Government forever. This is not something that really ought to be done this way at all. I do not disagree with the Senator from Maine. There are a substantial number of entities that are under the jurisdiction of various committees that should come to the governmental affairs and homeland security committee, as it is now to be renamed. But in terms of that transition, those things do not impact the overall commerce of the United States the way this one does. The Coast Guard, by the way--the Coast Guard's primary mission is not port security. It is to maintain the jurisdiction in the United States in peacetime over the waters that are essential to our commerce and in wartime to become part of the Department of Defense. What sense does it make to split it up? By the way, a portion of the Coast Guard is already under Homeland Security. It is already there. We agreed to it in the bill that created the Homeland Security Department. This takes the rest of it, the part that deals with fishing, that deals with boat inspection, that deals with the various aspects of using the Coast Guard around the world as it did off Iraq when it had the job of handling interdicting shipping that violated the sanctions against Iraq importing certain goods. That was done by the Coast Guard. This isn't homeland security, either. Its primary function up my way is to patrol the fisheries, to maintain the maritime border. That has nothing to do with the security of the United States. It has to do with the protection of the basic resources of our oceans. If anyone has worked with the Coast Guard, they know they are part of the drug interdiction job. Maybe DEA ought to be transferred to homeland security. I am not sure. But it is certainly not the kind of thing we are talking about now. The Coast Guard has missions beyond ports. It has waterways, coastal security, drug interdiction, migrant interdiction, defense readiness, maritime safety, search and rescue. Search and rescue is absolutely essential to our State, to have the Coast Guard deal with those souls who are at sea, in danger. They do a marvelous job. They do environmental protection. What does environmental protection have to do with homeland security? That is a different matter--oil spills, contamination of the water, ice protections, and whether we can have transit of the vessels that are capable of going through ice. We now have a considerable number of icebreakers up our way. That is what they deal with. There is an enormous number of categories that have nothing to do with homeland security and those that deal with homeland security we already transferred to homeland security. The idea the Coast Guard is taking now, the rest of it--the amendment would say, take the rest of it and put it over there. I don't know if it is in this one, but that is the proposal, as I understand it. Admiral Collins, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, when asked about the future asset acquisition of the Commerce Committee this last April, stated: To enhanced mission performance, The Coast Guard must optimize its unique authorities and capabilities, accomplishing partnerships while gaining capacity it needs to complete the full range of our missions. New assets will be used to conduct fishery patrols, search and rescue cases, as well as protecting the Nation against terrorist attacks. We have no problem putting the terrorist activities in. They are already in Homeland Security. You don't need this process to go through to split that jurisdiction up again. The problem right now is that Commerce Committee, having jurisdiction over all forms of transportation, would be faced with the problem of how to deal with this Transportation Security Agency. I think the committee under the chairmanship of the Senator from Arizona has a great record in dealing with this. As a matter of fact, they approved nine bills this year alone related to transportation security in this Congress and none of them dealt with security. One did--the Aviation Security Improvement Act was enhancement of security with regard to airlines themselves. I think if one examines the record of this Commerce Committee, it has conducted its jurisdiction under the Senator from Arizona. I look forward to continuing that as chairman in the next Congress. I want to give my friend from Hawaii time to speak on this. With regard to the nominations on the TSA and Coast Guard, they have been done in record time in Commerce. As compared to the rest of the Congress, nominations before our committee are expedited, and necessarily so. The impact of this matter obviously is that the confirmations of the Coast Guard will be taken over to homeland security. Those Coast Guard people do a lot more than just port security. I am getting redundant. But the difficulty with this is the transportation infrastructure itself should not be broken up. We should aim for the goal that this problem which is handled by TSA will be taken over by private enterprise. It should be. We envisioned that at the time we passed the original bill. We have jurisdiction, as I said, over aircraft, rail, and highways. There is no question when we look at it that putting those concepts that affect our livelihoods right now and dragging them down is the considerable impact of TSA on their operations--not only on this operation as passengers, but the whole spectrum of the relationship with TSA to the transportation entities, I think, needs to be considered. The McCain amendment would transfer jurisdiction over there to the homeland security and governmental affairs agency. We had a hearing this morning about the plight of the airline industry. There is no industry that has been affected as much by TSA as the airline industry. TSA is examining how to counter the threat posed by shoulder-launched missiles. The FAA has that jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction in Commerce over the FAA. Why should we transfer to Governmental Affairs the jurisdiction over an entity that is dealing with this type of equipment? They also have jurisdiction ultimately over some of the aspects of the transportation mechanisms themselves-- design of airplanes, design of buses, design of trucks, cars; the whole thing. I believe all of that ought to stay where it is, with Commerce. The FAA currently governs baggage weight and rules for lost and damaged baggage. TSA only deals with baggage security. We are going to take baggage security and put a whole entity over there when the problem is the problem of the industry which has the responsibility legally for the baggage no matter who handles it. I think this is absolutely wrong. Currently, the airline industry pays $14 billion in user fees, according to the air transportation testimony. Those fees have to be reduced. The only way to reduce them is to get TSA's function into the hands of private enterprise related to the entity they serve--not the whole transportation system but the system they are working with. TSA is designed almost as a ``one size fits all'' for everything. That should not be. We should have a security system that is related to the responsibility of those providing the transportation and let the users of that transportation pay for it and not the taxpayers. This is where in the long run we are going to go, and I believe it is the right thing to do. I cannot believe we should have two committees dealing with the airline industry. Governmental Affairs has no competence in this area in terms of the impact of entities like TSA on the airline industry. We do. We assert it in the committee under the chairmanship of the Senator from Arizona. It has been a good relationship. I believe it should be continued. I have talked a little bit about the Coast Guard. I don't think that is covered by this amendment. The current amendment covers only Commerce, as I understand it. Is that correct? I have not seen the amendment yet. Parliamentary inquiry: Does this amendment currently only apply to the Commerce Department? Is it under TSA and the Commerce Committee jurisdiction?