Congressional Record: October 8, 2004 (Senate)
Page S10764-S10816
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REORGANIZATION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. Res. 445, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 445) to eliminate certain
restrictions on service of a Senator on the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence.
Pending:
McConnell/Reid/Frist/Daschle Amendment No. 3981, in the
nature of a substitute.
Bingaman (for Domenici) Amendment No. 4040 (to Amendment
No. 3981), to transfer jurisdiction over organization and
management of United States nuclear export policy to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the cloture motion
having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to
read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion.
We the undersigned Senators in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the standing rules of the Senate
do hereby move to bring to a close debate to the pending
amendment on S. Res. 445, a resolution to eliminate certain
restrictions on service of a Senator on the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence.
Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, John Cornyn,
Craig Thomas, James Inhofe, Mike Crapo, Conrad Burns,
Norm Coleman, Tom Daschle, Lamar Alexander, James
Talent, Wayne Allard, Gordon Smith, Larry Craig, Robert
Bennett, Pete Domenici, Susan Collins.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate debate on Amendment
No. 3981, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, shall be
brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL, I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr.
Campbell), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), and the Senator
from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) are necessarily absent.
Mr. REID, I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry),
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), and the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bond). Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 88, nays 3, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]
YEAS--88
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--3
Collins
McCain
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--9
Campbell
Chambliss
Edwards
Graham (FL)
Hollings
Kerry
Leahy
Lieberman
Sununu
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 88, the nays are 3.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The assistant Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be temporarily set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4035, As Modified
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4035 for the
majority leader, Senator Frist. I understand a modification to the
amendment is at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the modification
be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ALLARD). Is there objection?
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. HARKIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. HARKIN. I object.
Mr. HATCH. I cannot make a unanimous consent request.
Mr. HARKIN. I object.
Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted
to speak for up to 1 hour and after that the quorum be reinstituted.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, his hour will be counted
against the time for the cloture; is that right?
Mr. HATCH. No, because I am not speaking on the bill.
Mr. REID. I object, then.
Mr. HATCH. That is fine.
Mr. REID. I objected.
Mr. HATCH. Fine. Your request is fine.
Mr. REID. The hour will be counted?
Mr. HATCH. Fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Utah is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HATCH. I thank the distinguished minority whip and, of course, my
friend from Iowa for their courtesy. I have been wanting to give these
Senate remarks as in morning business ever since yesterday.
[...]
Amendment No. 4027 to Amendment No. 3981
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4027.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes an
amendment numbered 4027 to amendment No. 3981.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To vest sole jurisdiction over the Federal budget process in
the Committee on the Budget)
At the end of Section 101, insert the following:
``(e) Jurisdiction of Budget Committee.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Committee on the Budget
shall have exclusive jurisdiction over measures affecting the
congressional budget process, including:
(1) the functions, duties, and powers of the Congressional
Budget Office;
(2) the functions, duties, and powers of the Congressional
Budget Office;
(3) the process by which Congress annually establishes the
appropriate levels of budget authority, outlays, revenues,
deficits or surpluses, and public debt--including
subdivisions thereof--and including the establishment of
mandatory ceilings on spending and appropriations, a floor on
revenues, timetables for congressional action on concurrent
resolutions, on the reporting of authorization bills, and on
the enactment of appropriation bills, and enforcement
mechanisms for budgetary limits and timetables;
(4) the limiting of backdoor spending devices;
(5) the timetables for Presidential submission of
appropriations and authorization requests;
(6) the definitions of what constitutes impoundment--such
as ``rescissions'' and ``deferrals'';
(7) the process and determination by which impoundments
must be reported to and considered by Congress;
(8) the mechanisms to insure Executive compliance with the
provisions of the Impoundment Control Act, title X--such as
GAO review and lawsuits; and
(9) the provisions which affect the content or
determination of amounts included in or excluded from the
congressional budget or the calculation of such amounts,
including the definition of terms provided by the Budget
Act.''
Amendment No. 4041 To Amendment No. 4027
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4041 to amendment
No. 4027.
Mr. KENNEDY. Point of order, Mr. President. Parliamentary inquiry: As
I understood it, the Senator from Arizona yielded for points of
discussion. I ask the Chair if he would not rule. I ask if he asked
consent if he would be able to yield, for the point of discussion, to
other Members here? As I understand it now, the Senator is offering an
amendment. That is not discussion. I make a point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yielded for a specified period of
time.
Mr. KENNEDY. And not for discussion only?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Simply for a specified period of time.
Mr. KENNEDY. What is the request now that is before the Chair?
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. McCAIN. What is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the right to
call up an amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what is the request?
Mr. McCAIN. What is the pending business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has called up an amendment and has
sent it to the desk, and a second-degree amendment as well, which is
his right.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe I was recognized.
For the information of my colleagues, to help clarify, I believe I
understood the underlying Domenici amendment was set aside.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do not believe the pending amendment was
set aside. It required unanimous consent.
Mr. NICKLES. My understanding--I will ask the Chair, but it is my
understanding the Domenici-Craig amendment was set aside. Under the
unanimous consent agreement that was entered into yesterday, there were
several amendments to be pending, that are in order. One of those
amendments is an amendment I had, dealing with the budget office. I am
just trying to get in, too.
I have modified it at the request of the chairman of the Government
Operations Committee. This is not a significant amendment, but it is an
important one and I am trying to advance the movement of this bill, to
have a pending amendment. I have now modified it. I have a second-
degree amendment pending to it, that Senator Kent Conrad and myself are
cosponsoring.
It now means that would be the pending amendment to the underlying
bill when we go to the regular order on the bill. I would like for us
to finish this bill.
I know some people wish to speak at length because they happen to be
upset about the Homeland Security bill. I may support them in their
efforts. That remains to be seen. But I do think it is important we
finish the bill that is pending, and there are four or five amendments
that are out there. Maybe two or three of those amendments will be
agreed to and we can finish the Homeland Security bill in a very short
period of time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. McCAIN. Before I yield to the Senator from Kentucky--I mean
Massachusetts----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second-degree
amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes an
amendment numbered 4041 to amendment No. 4027.
Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. HARKIN. I object.
The assistant legislative clerk continued with the reading, as
follows:
Strike all after the first word, and insert the following:
``Jurisdiction of Budget Committee.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, and except as otherwise
provided in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee on the Budget shall have exclusive jurisdiction
over measures affecting the congressional budget process,
which are:
[[Page S10782]]
(1) the functions, duties, and powers of the Budget
Committee;
(2) the functions, duties, and powers of the Congressional
Budget Office;
(3) the process by which Congress annually establishes the
appropriate levels of budget authority, outlays, revenues,
deficits or surpluses, and public debt--including
subdivisions thereof--and including the establishment of
mandatory ceilings on spending and appropriations, a floor on
revenues, timetables for congressional action on concurrent
resolutions, on the reporting of authorization bills, and on
the enactment of appropriation bills, and enforcement
mechanisms for budgetary limits and timetables;
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it does not take consent to stop reading. I
seek recognition. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want the attention----
Mr. McCAIN. I have the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Has the time of the Senator from Oklahoma expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Oklahoma has
expired.
The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Massachusetts was waiting to say a few
words. I ask unanimous consent to yield to the Senator from
Massachusetts for 5 minutes for the purpose of discussion, followed by
the Senator from Nevada for 2 minutes, with my right to regain the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent to speak before Senator Kennedy for
1 or 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I direct this to my friend from Oklahoma. I
have the greatest respect for the Senator from Oklahoma. But it is not
appropriate when neither manager is on the floor to send an amendment
to the desk. It is not the way we do things around here. I ask
unanimous consent that the action taken by my friend be vitiated. That
is not fair. I say that with all due respect. We have been here for the
last 3 or 4 days.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCAIN. Once, shame on you; twice, shame on me. The Senator from
Massachusetts was recognized.
Mr. REID. My time is not up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the action
taken by the Senator from Oklahoma be vitiated, and that we go back to
where we started before he offered his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. NICKLES. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my friends and colleagues from Iowa,
Florida, and Louisiana have outlined very briefly some of their
concerns about how they felt the minority had been treated in an
arbitrary way in the conference committee.
I want to remind the Senate that we had a 78-to-15 vote in the Senate
to tie the tobacco buyout with the FDA regulations, and that particular
proposal came back. We had not asked that the tobacco buyout be in the
tax bill. But, nonetheless, the House decided to put it in the bill.
Then when it came back here, the decision of that conference was made
to take care of the tobacco companies and give short shrift to the
children of this country.
I think it is going to be appropriate that many of us talk about that
and make sure the American people understand that.
Finally, we have also had the issue on overtime. Three times we saw
the decision made in the Senate to repeal the administration's
overtime--twice in the House of Representatives. This was given 6
minutes in the conference committee.
I think the working families of this country have a right to
understand and know what is in that FSC bill. I for one intend to use
my time to make sure that they do.
I thank the Senator from Arizona for yielding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to say again I am not sure
that the situation on Monday, or Tuesday, or midnight tonight, or
Wednesday, or whatever, is going to be any different than it is now. I
have been assured by the leader that we could have any amendment within
reason considered, debated, and voted on in a reasonable length of
time. I hope my colleagues will consider doing that.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to.
Mr. DURBIN. If I am not mistaken, it is possible to amend the
conference committee report which was sent to us for consideration on
the floor of the Senate. The Senator suggested amendments several
times. I ask if he would please clarify that.
Mr. McCAIN. I think the Senator knows that conference reports are not
amendable. But I would also respond by saying as frustrated as many of
us are with conference reports, especially appropriations conference
reports coming out with little things in them that we never
anticipated, if you want to delay it 1 day, or 2 days, or a week, the
result is basically going to be the same. I think we all know that.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to yield for a question by the Senator
from New Hampshire.
I am learning.
Mr. GREGG. The Senator has spent some time there, and we appreciate
it.
Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Arizona if he would be willing
to allow me to go forward with a unanimous consent request which the
Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and I have agreed to which
would extend the higher education bill and which would in addition
allow us to save the taxpayers $100 million from money that is now
being paid out to banks that are getting unconscionably high rates of
return on student loans, and take that money and apply it so that
teachers who go into underserved districts or in matters such as
special education could receive a much higher forgiveness of their
loans, raising their forgiveness from $5,000 to $17,000.
I was wondering if the Senator would allow me to offer a unanimous
consent request. I believe it has been signed off on by both sides.
Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to.
I wonder why the Senator missed this one. What happened? Are we
asleep at the switch? Everything else is in here.
Mr. GREGG. That is a good point.
Mr. McCAIN. There is all kinds of fun in that. I don't know why you
missed that one. Of course, we have homeland appropriations coming
down. That is loaded with pork. The Senator from New Mexico just
mentioned they changed the formula on milk to the tune of about $2.4
billion.
Mr. DOMENICI. They haven't yet.
Mr. GREGG. This is within the jurisdiction of my committee, and the
Senator from Massachusetts and I have worked on this. We think it is
important for existing students who are paying this ridiculous interest
rate--the Government is paying this ridiculous interest rate--and use
the money to help teachers who are going into underserved areas. Will
the Senator allow me to do that?
Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to.
Mr. KENNEDY. I am in strong support.
Mr. McCAIN. I am happy to yield for a question by the Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator agree with me that even though I might
strongly support what the Senator from New Hampshire has stated, I
would like to defer action because my friend and colleague Senator
Harkin is not here at the moment. He may or may not object. He objected
to it earlier. I hope the Senator will address this later on in the
afternoon or evening.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield the floor at
this time? At some time I would like to put the body on notice that we
need to handle it today.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the work of the Senator from
New Hampshire and the Senator from
[[Page S10783]]
Massachusetts on this issue. I have been reading a lot about it. I
think it is disgraceful and outrageous, and I think every Member of
this body agrees with it. I hope we can get this done today because it
is as egregious as the Senator from New Hampshire described.
I have little doubt about the outcome of this vote, but I will
continue to remind my colleagues that the so-called reorganization
resolution is a farce. The hypocrisy was bad enough when the resolution
was laid down Wednesday evening. Since that time, Members' parochial
interests have whittled away the little new oversight authority that
would be transferred to the renamed homeland security and governmental
affairs committee. The result is nothing more than a name change for
the committee.
I associate myself with the remarks of Senator Voinovich, who made
some comments last night when he further exposed this sham for what it
is. We should adopt this proposal to not rename the committee but keep
it the Governmental Affairs Committee since we really are not making
any substantive changes.
In today's Washington Post, there is an excellent column by David
Ignatius. David Ignatius says in the article:
``It's outrageous. The American people should be angry,''
says former Senator Bob Kerrey, who was a Member of the Sept.
11 commission and for eight years served as a member of the
Senate intelligence committee. He argues that it would have
been better to drop the executive-branch changes if Congress
was not going to reform itself. ``These are secret
agencies,'' he explains. ``Unless you put in place strong
oversight, it isn't going to work.''
In fact, Senator Kerrey and others argue with the consolidation of
power we are making it more dangerous because there is no oversight. We
may have not only remained in neutral here as far as increasing
congressional oversight, but since we are consolidating power, what
this proposal does is even more dangerous to America than the status
quo.
The 9/11 Commission in its report described congressional oversight
of intelligence as ``dysfunctional.'' They did not say it needed
improvement; they did not say the system could use a tweak here or
there; they said it was dysfunctional and that it needed comprehensive
change. So we in the Senate supposedly committed to doing just that. We
formed a working group, held discussions--they were interesting
discussions, by the way--committed to bringing a bill to the Senate,
and now we are here.
What have we done? Have we embraced comprehensive change? No, we
haven't. We haven't even embraced a modicum of change. We have said
that the status quo is fine with us, and as far as the Senate is
concerned, September 11 never happened. It never happened, if you look
at what is being done in the name of responding to September 11 and the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
Now, we are tinkering with the oversight responsibilities of the
Intelligence Committee but certainly nothing substantive. When I go
home to Arizona and I say: My friends, we have really reformed
intelligence; we have changed the Intelligence Committee from a B
committee to an A committee. How do you like that? They are going to be
overwhelmed when they hear that we have changed the Intelligence
Committee from a B committee to an A committee. I can see the
Scottsdale Rotary Club rising to their feet in applause for this
incredible change we have made in the way we carry out our intelligence
oversight responsibility.
I apologize for engaging in a little bit too much hyperbole.
We took away from the new committee jurisdiction over immigration,
then the Secret Service. I have to relate to my colleagues a funny
story in case they missed it. I was on the Senate floor with the two
sponsors of the amendment that would keep the Secret Service under the
Judiciary Committee when they said: You know, the Secret Service really
wants to be under the Judiciary Committee. I have encountered hundreds
of Secret Service agents, and I have never had a single one come up to
me and say: Senator, please put me under the oversight of the
Judiciary Committee. Never. I guess I have not spoken to the right
agents.
Anyway, all that is remains of the committee on homeland security is
the name. I wouldn't be surprised if someone objected to that on
jurisdictional grounds.
The new committee, as the Senator from Maine and the Senator from
Connecticut will attest, the new committee will have responsibility
over 34 percent of the budget and 3.9 percent of the employees. About
all that it will be responsible for is FEMA and the Office of the
Secretary. That is right, over 96 percent of the employees of the
Department of Homeland Security will fall under the jurisdiction of
other committees, not the committee on homeland security. So much for
real reform.
One of the recurrent themes has been the overload of the Department
of Homeland Security because of the number of committees they have to
testify before during the course of a year. The number, as I remember,
is 88 different committees and subcommittees, et cetera. I hope the
Senator from Maine will assert exactly how many committees and
subcommittees under this revolutionary new reorganization the
Department of Homeland Security will have to testify to.
Now, a word about the Department of Homeland Security, the White
House, and the administration. While we were trying in our amendment to
move the TSA--a radical idea--to move the Transportation Security
Administration under the new Department of Homeland Security, which I
think garnered 22 of my colleagues' votes, along with myself, while we
did that, we got these calls: Way to go, we are with you, we are with
you. This is a great thing to do. You have to move the TSA into the
Department of Homeland Security.
I said: Fine, will you issue a statement saying that? No, no, no, we
cannot do that. We cannot issue a statement saying we support such an
amendment. We might make somebody mad.
We saw the result of that outrageous attempt to move the organization
called the Transportation Security Administration under the
jurisdiction of the committee on homeland security. I will admit in
retrospect I cannot imagine why anyone would assume that the
Transportation Security Administration should fall under the committee
on homeland security.
Anyway, we aren't changing things here. We have decided the status
quo is good enough, and we are sticking with it.
I again quote from David Ignatius' article in the Washington Post
this morning:
Senators were patting themselves on the back yesterday for
passing some of the intelligence reforms recommended by the
9/11 Commission.
I was one of those. I was praising the work that was done as far as
executive reorganization. It was landmark legislation, the first major
reorganization of Government since 1947. It was an incredible job.
But behind the scenes, the legislative process has been an egregious
example of congressional politics as usual.
Legislators have embraced the commission's call for a
national intelligence director and a national
counterterrorism center that would, in theory, coordinate
intelligence efforts in the executive branch. But they
have ignored or gutted the commission's proposal for
similar reforms in the way Congress oversees intelligence.
``Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional
oversight may be among the most difficult and important,''
the commissioners stressed in their final report. They urged
that Congress give its intelligence committees control over
both authorizations and appropriations--so that the
committees would finally have the muscle to provide real
oversight.
Why did the Senate bill scuttle these internal reforms of
what the commission called ``a dysfunctional'' system?
Because they would threaten the turf of powerful legislators.
To be blunt, the Senators put their own perks and
prerogatives ahead of the Nation's security.
That is a pretty tough statement.
``It is outrageous. The American people should be angry,''
says former Senator Bob Kerrey.
By the way, Senator Bob Kerrey left part of his leg on the
battlefield at Vietnam and received the Congressional Medal of Honor
and was also a member of the 9/11 Commission and for 8 years served as
a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
He argues that it would have been better to drop the
executive-branch changes if Congress was not going to reform
itself. ``These are secret agencies,'' he explains. ``Unless
[[Page S10784]]
you put in place strong oversight, it isn't going to work.''
Because the real power lies with the appropriations, the intelligence
agencies know they can safely ignore pressure from the Intelligence
Committee. Indeed, major contractors that do business with the
intelligence community, such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and TRW, are
said to spend little time lobbying the intelligence panels because they
know the appropriators have the power of the purse. CIA Directors
recognize the same reality. They can ignore the intelligence committees
as long as they keep stroking the appropriators.
We will have a status quo Intelligence Committee without combined
authorization and appropriations power, a committee that handles only a
tiny fraction of homeland security issues, and we will be right back
where we started. So let's be honest with ourselves and with the
American people. We aren't changing things here. We have decided that
the status quo is good enough, and we are sticking with it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, no matter how many times you say something
that is not true, it does not make it true. I am not going to belabor
the point other than to say we have spent a lot of time doing what the
9/11 Commission recommended. Did we do everything they asked? No, we
did not. Did we do 90 percent of what they asked? The answer is yes, as
I explained on the floor on more than one occasion with the charts
where we checked off what they asked for and we did. Again, I repeat,
it does not matter how many times you say something that is not true,
it does not make it true.
Now, people can minimize all they want. The committee on homeland
security will be created as soon as we complete this cloture fiasco we
are now involved in. As I read on the floor here yesterday evening for
half an hour, only getting into two directorates, the homeland security
committee that will be formed could hold hearings every day next year
and still not complete all the policy decisions that are made regarding
terrorism in this country. Yes, they may not have all the employees,
but they have the policy that is important to make our country safer.
We start out with the basic Government Operations Committee, and we
do not change that one iota, and we add to that four directorates. For
three they have total 100 percent responsibility, and for the fourth
one they have partial responsibility.
I repeat for the third time today, no matter how many times you say
something that is untrue, it does not make it true. You cannot have it
both ways. We have people telling us that we may establish nothing out
of this committee, but yet we have people here grousing from 10
different committees saying we gave them too much. You cannot have it
both ways.
Now, I know there is some disappointment on the part of the Senator
from Maine, and I have heard very little from the Senator from
Connecticut. I know he has been away for religious observances, but I
have kept in close contact with him. I think he realizes the glass is
not half empty, it is half full.
This committee is a good committee. It is going to be one of the most
significant committees in this Congress. It is going to increase the
brawn and muscle of the Government Operations Committee tenfold. We
took jurisdiction from 10 standing committees and gave things to the
new committee.
Now, as an example, let's just take my committee. I have been
chairman on two separate occasions of the Environment and Public Works
Committee. We have wide-ranging responsibilities in that committee. But
one thing we have that is most important is the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. I have spent a lot of time on that committee.
When I served in the House of Representatives, Congressman Al Gore
was chairman of a committee called Investigations and Oversight, and we
spent weeks doing investigations regarding FEMA. I know a little bit
about it. It is a very powerful institution. The new government
operations/expanded homeland security has complete jurisdiction over
that, except for flood control. Flood control has always been with the
Banking Committee. It took all day yesterday to work something out so
that the new Government Operations Committee could still have that.
So, Mr. President, when we complete our work on this--and we are
going to complete it pretty soon--people will be striving to get on the
committee that will be chaired, at least for the next couple of months,
by Chairman Collins; after that maybe Senator Lieberman.
But the point I want to make is I know people have been putting in
the mind of the distinguished Senator from Maine that she got nothing.
Isn't it terrible what they did to you? The fact of the matter is, I
read only partially here on the Senate floor last night the
responsibilities of this new committee. The responsibilities are
terribly significant.
We still have work to do on this resolution. I am disappointed that
it has not been completed. I want the record to be spread with the fact
that Senator McConnell and I did not do a perfect job, but we did the
best job we could do, and we have worked for weeks trying to do
something that was very hard to do; that is, change what this body
does.
Everyone hates change, as when I started my remarks, whether it is a
change in your family relationship, as I explained when my daughter
left to go to college, or whether it is a committee you feel strongly
about.
I talked to a Member of the Senate today, and he said: Today was a
big change in my life. I said: What? And he said--I am not going to
embarrass him and use his name; this happened at lunchtime--he said: I
have been using the House gymnasium for 22 years. He said: I switched;
today I started using the Senate gym. He said: You have no idea how
hard that was for me to do because even though I am a Senator now, I
have used that gym for 22 years.
People hate change. They fight change. And I have to say, I have
never changed; I still use the House gym.
So I am sorry, because I have talked to her personally, and I am
sorry the Senator from Maine is disappointed in the jurisdiction she
has. I am sorry we could not give her more jurisdiction. But, believe
me, she will do a good job, because there is so much to do. I have
worked here with a lot of different Senators in the years I have been
in the Senate, and I have found very few people as competent and as
resourceful and who work as hard as the Senator from Maine. I know when
she gets this committee, even though she feels slighted that she did
not get more, she will have her hands full doing what she will be doing
very competently.
So the main point I want to make here, for the fourth time--and I am
not going to apologize to anyone for the work I did on this. Not to
anyone. I worked hard. It was hard to get where we are. And I repeat,
if people think we did nothing, why have I been berated the last few
days about: How could you do this? How could you take this from me? And
I used, every time, the example of FEMA. FEMA is no insignificant
matter. We took significant matters from 10 standing committees and
have given them to the new government operations, expanded homeland
security committee.
I am going to continue to support the legislation. I have kept the 9/
11 Commission advised. This is not an end run we have done on the 9/11
Commission. Oh, isn't it surprising? Why didn't Reid keep us informed?
Reid kept them informed.
Now, I wrote a book, published a history book, and people criticized
my book. They can if they want. I defend what is in my book, and they
defend what is in their report. The 9/11 Commission--I have said on
this floor, not on one occasion, not on two occasions, I cannot count
how many occasions I have complimented my friend, Congressman Lee
Hamilton, and Governor Kean. I know Lee Hamilton very well. I have
known him for 22 years. I do not know Governor Kean very well, but I
surely like him. I know how competent he is. I know Roemer, who served
there; Slade Gorton, an outstanding Senator whom I served with; Bob
Kerrey, one of my good friends, whom I think the world of. They did a
wonderful job.
We have given the 9/11 Commission and the people of America, as I
said, most everything the 9/11 Commission
[[Page S10785]]
recommended. The 9/11 Commission, by the way, did not tell us how to
reorganize the Senate. What we are doing here does not take the
President to sign off on. We do this on our own. This is what we are
doing. This is one of the most significant changes in the history of
this Congress.
Now, people say: Well, big deal; it is not a very big change. I think
it is a significant change. Remember, we got rid of a subcommittee on
Appropriations. We created a new subcommittee. We gave a lot of muscle
to the new Intelligence Committee.
I checked off here yesterday all the things we gave to the new
Intelligence Committee. We got rid of term limits, which they
complained about for so long, increased staffing and made it
bipartisan, so now it is not divided 3 to the minority and 23--I don't
know the exact number, but about that--33 to the majority. It is now
divided 60/40. That is the way it should be.
Congress should create a single, principal point of
oversight and review for homeland security. Congressional
leaders are best able to judge what committee should have
jurisdiction over this department and its duties.
This is not something I dreamed up. This comes directly from the 9/11
Commission. Page 421 of the 9/11 Commission, what did they say? They
said:
Congressional leaders are best able to judge what committee
should have jurisdiction over this department and its duties.
We did that. Now, is it in keeping with what my friend for 22 years,
Senator McCain, thinks we should do? No. He thinks we should do things
differently. But we made decisions he does not agree with. That does
not mean we are all right, but that does not mean he is all right
either. I mean, he is all right--not right on this issue. So we did as
the 9/11 Commission said we should do.
Again, it is not as if we were doing something that was significantly
more important anyway. But I read yesterday all the many
responsibilities that this committee has. I want to find this again. I
am turning to my loyal staff here. This is directorate No. 1. The
responsibilities are very significant. And for someone to say this is
not important, I defy reason to say this is not important.
This committee has jurisdiction over this: To access, receive, and
analyze law enforcement information, intelligence information, and
other information from agencies of the Federal Government--and it
always says ``State and local''--to integrate such information in order
to, A, identify and assess the nature and scope of terrorist threats to
the homeland; B, detect and identify threats of terrorism against the
United States; and, C, understand such threats in light of actual and
potential vulnerabilities of the homeland.
No. 2, to carry out comprehensive assessments of the vulnerabilities
of key resources and critical infrastructure of the United States,
including the performance of risk assessments to determine the risks
posed by particular types of terrorist attacks within the United
States, including assessment of the probability of success of such
attacks and the feasibility and potential efficacy of various
countermeasures to such attacks.
I say through the Chair to my friend from Maine, if you spent 6
months of the next congressional session having congressional hearings
on this, you would have your plate completely full just on this. But we
didn't stop there. I have gone through two of the obligations,
responsibilities they have. But there are 17 more, such as: To
integrate relevant information--I am skipping a little bit--analyses,
and vulnerability assessments in order to identify priorities for
protective and support measures by the Department, other agencies of
the Federal Government, State and local government agencies; to ensure
the timely and efficient access by the Department to all information
necessary to discharge the responsibilities.
No. 5, to develop a comprehensive national plan for securing the key
resources and critical infrastructure of the United States, including
power production, generation, and distribution systems, information
technology, telecommunications systems, including satellites,
electronic, financial, property record storage, transmission systems,
emergency preparedness communications systems, and the physical and
technological aspects that support such systems.
I say, these responsibilities may not be very glamorous. You may not
be calling people in that are part of the 41,000 Transportation
Security Administration, but it sure is important to my family and the
people of the State of Nevada that we do some good work to find out
about a national plan for securing our electricity, our satellites, our
electronic and financial records storage and transmission systems. That
requires some congressional hearings.
If somebody is chairman of that committee and ranking member or a
member of the committee, I think that is something they should focus
on, at least for a little while.
No. 6, to recommend measures necessary to protect key resources and
critical infrastructure of the United States, in coordination with
other agencies of the Federal Government.
No. 7, to administer the homeland security advisory system, including
exercising primary responsibility for public advisories related to
threats to homeland security; to review, analyze, and make
recommendations for improvements in the policies and procedures
governing the sharing of law enforcement information, intelligence
information, intelligence-related information, other information
related to homeland security.
No. 9, to disseminate information analyzed by the Department to
Homeland Security, agencies of State and local governments, and private
sector entities with such responsibilities to assist in the deterrence,
prevention, preemption of, or response to terrorist acts against the
United States.
I think that is a pretty heavy responsibility. To say this is
nothing, you haven't given us anything.
No. 10, to consult with the Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency--right now we still have a CIA Director--and other appropriate
intelligence, law enforcement, or other elements of the Federal
Government to establish collection priorities and strategies for
information relating to threats of terrorism against the United States;
to consult with State and local governments and private sector entities
to ensure appropriate exchanges of information, including law-
enforcement-related information; to ensure that any material received
pursuant to this act is protected from unauthorized disclosure; to
ensure that any intelligence information is shared, retained, and
disseminated consistent with the authority of the Director of the CIA.
So for someone to say: What is this? You wasted all of our time here.
We should not have done anything. It is an insult. I told people this
is, if not the hardest thing I have ever done, one of the hardest in
all the time I have been in Congress. For someone to stand and say, You
didn't do anything, what I would suggest to the Senator from Maine, if
she doesn't like this committee, turn it over to somebody else. I will
bet a lot of people would like it. The ranking member right under her,
I bet they would love to have this committee.
To request additional information from other agencies of the Federal
Government, State and local government agencies, and the private sector
relating to threats of terrorism against the United States; to
establish and utilize, in conjunction with the chief information
officer of the Department, a secure communication and information
technology infrastructure, including data mining, and other advanced
analytical tools, in order to access, receive, and analyze data and
information.
Again, there are not a lot of employees involved in this, but if we
depended on that--I don't know the number of employees we have in the
Federal Government; it is over 2 million, millions anyway--how many
employees were involved, you would just ignore the FBI. There are only
11,000, only 11,000 out of approximately 2 million. I don't know that
exact number, a very tiny percentage of what the FBI makes up of the
overall workforce, but it is still real important.
What I am talking about is, that is going to be the responsibility of
this committee, and it is also important.
I am still only through No. 13. We have six more to go in the first
directorate. I have three more directorates to go through to show what
this new committee that a small minority here think doesn't amount to
much, I am
[[Page S10786]]
saying it amounts to plenty. If this committee does its job--and I say
without any hesitation that I know that Senator Lieberman and the
distinguished Senator from Maine will do a good job--they will have a
lot to do. They make sure to listen in one ear about all they don't
have to do, but let's also listen with the other ear about all they
have to do. Some people like to denigrate anything we try to do about
this institution. Some like to tear it down.
No. 15, to ensure, in conjunction with the chief information officer
of the Department, that any information databases and analytical tools
developed or utilized by the Department are compatible with one another
and with relevant information databases of other agencies of the
Federal Government; B, treat the information in such databases in a
manner that complies with applicable Federal laws on privacy.
That is one of the biggest issues. I did a poll in Nevada a few years
ago, and my staff, when they came to me, was stunned. In Nevada, the
most important issue was not health care, it was not education, not the
environment, not jobs--it was privacy. People in America are extremely
concerned about privacy. We have all these electronic tools to do all
kinds of things. And we want to make sure people's privacy is
protected. One of the obligations of this committee is to see what can
be done, with all the electronic apparatus we have for collecting
intelligence and protecting the homeland, that it doesn't interfere
with my family's privacy. That is a responsibility this committee will
have when we complete it.
No. 16, to coordinate training and other support to the elements and
personnel of the Department.
No. 17, to coordinate elements in the intelligence community with
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and the private
sector, as appropriate; to provide intelligence and information
analysis, and support to other elements of the Department.
And who does this cover? Who does this committee look to, to gather
information? One of their defined legislative responsibilities--it is
in this Record right now, we are making legislative history with the
jurisdiction of this committee, but this is also in the underlying
amendment that is now before this body, covered agencies: The
Department of State, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency, the National
Imagery and Mapping Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and any
other agency of the Federal Government that the President considers
appropriate.
This is the legislative history that we are making to establish what
this committee has to do. For someone to say their dealing with the
CIA, FBI, NSA, and the DIA is not important, well, that is too bad
because it is important.
We also have another directorate, and I will only cover a couple
because there are four. The fourth one doesn't have total coverage over
that. That is the one where immigration--they only have part of that--
relating to security.
The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over immigration as it
relates to policy matters, as I understand it. They have security
matters. I may not have defined it as policy, but they don't have 100
percent of the other directorate.
One of the directorates they have is emergency preparedness and
response. I already talked about FEMA being part of their
responsibility--and a big responsibility FEMA is, Mr. President. It is
one of the most important agencies we have in the Federal Government
today. As we speak, they are doing gallant work in Florida, Alabama,
and Georgia as a result of the hurricanes. We lend that agency to
foreign countries because they are the best in the world when there is
an emergency. I have learned over the years that the most important
thing they work on is water-related emergencies across the country,
with flooding and those kinds of things. Floods are caused by lots of
different things. So what does the FEMA have to do? They do this:
All functions and authorities prescribed by the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistant Act, which is carrying out its
mission to reduce the loss of life and property and protect the Nation
from all hazards by leading and supporting the Nation in a
comprehensive, risk-based emergency management program--A, of
mitigation, by taking sustained actions to reduce or eliminate long-
term risk to people and property from hazards and their effects; B, of
planning for building the emergency management profession to prepare
effectively for, mitigate against, respond to, and recover from any
hazard; of response, by conducting emergency operations to save lives
and property through positioning emergency equipment and supplies,
through evacuating potential victims, through providing food, water,
shelter, and medical care to those in need, and through restoring
critical public services; of recovery, by rebuilding communities so
individuals, businesses, and governments can function on their own,
return to normal life, and protect against future hazards.
Mr. President, I first became aware of the work that FEMA does when
we had a disastrous flood in northern Nevada. We don't get much rain in
Nevada, but we had a lot of snow in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. We had
early rain. That water came down without warning. And as I traveled to
Gardnerville and Minden in Douglas County, one of my friends there, a
farmer who had lived there for a long time, said: Look out here. A
little river that a child could walk across most of the time was like a
raging river. Cottonwood trees that were 100 years old were being
thrown down the river path like toothpicks. By the time I got to
northern Nevada, coming in a different airport because the regular
airport was closed, FEMA had already set up operations and started
life-sustaining operations, feeding people. They had already set up
locations for businesses that had been devastated to come and make
their claims.
If we did nothing else other than transfer FEMA from the Environment
and Public Works to the new homeland security committee, that is a
tremendous new responsibility for that committee--in addition to the
page after page of other stuff I read that is their responsibility.
For the fifth time, people can come on this floor and keep saying
what we have done is inconsequential and doesn't mean anything, but
saying that doesn't mean it is true. I want everybody within the sound
of my voice to understand some of the things we have transferred to
this committee. Remember, this was already an A committee. It had lots
of work to do. That is why some people around here are saying, What are
people complaining about? It is already an A committee. They are
getting a lot of stuff to do, other responsibilities from 10 different
committees. What more do they want?
Well, I guess they want more. I say the glass should be half full,
not half empty. It may not be perfect, but it is certainly pretty good.
We have to complete this legislation. There are six amendments, a
couple maybe we can work out. Some of them probably we will not be able
to work out, and a couple will be withdrawn. We are close to being able
to finish. As I understand the parliamentary aspect, first of all,
sometime tomorrow, if all time is used, we will vote on the amendment
now before the body. After having completed these amendments, then we
will vote on the underlying resolution--invoke cloture on that and, of
course, there are 30 hours to run on that. When that is completed, this
will be done.
The Senate, without having to go to the House of Representatives or
the President, will have made one of the largest changes in the history
of this body by reorganizing the legislative branch of Government. So,
again, we transferred matters from Agriculture, Armed Services,
Commerce, Energy and Natural Resources, Environment and Public Works,
Finance, Foreign Relations, and Judiciary, so I think we have done a
good job.
I am disappointed that my friend from Maine is apparently
disappointed in thinking she is not going to have enough to do. I want
her to know that the distinguished Senator from Kentucky and I did the
best we could. Remember, this is not a dictatorship we have here, it is
a legislative body. We cannot just suddenly decide what we want and it
happens. It is a process that I talked about last night.
[[Page S10787]]
Legislation is the art of compromise. That is why you don't see much
reorganization in the legislative branch of Government, because it is
hard to do. As the President said in the last debate: This is hard
work. It is hard work what we have done.
Again, I am disappointed that she is disappointed because I have the
highest respect for her. I want her to know that I have only touched,
this afternoon, on a very few things that she has to do. There are so
many other things that this committee has. As I said, in years to come,
what we have done this afternoon and what we will do on this
legislation will be laid out before the Senate, so it will be easy for
referrals and other things this committee will do.
This is one of the directorates, emergency preparedness and response:
The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for Emergency
Preparedness and Response shall include: Helping to ensure the
effectiveness of emergency response providers to terrorist attacks,
major disasters, and other emergencies; coordinating other Federal
response resources in the event of a terrorist attack or major
disaster; aiding the recovery from terrorist attacks and major
disasters; building a comprehensive national incident management system
with Federal, State, and local government personnel, agencies, and
authorities, to respond to such attacks and disasters; consolidating
existing Federal Government emergency response plans into a single,
coordinated national response plan; and finally, developing
comprehensive programs for developing interoperative communications
technology and helping to ensure that emergency response providers
acquire such technology. So please do not tell me this committee does
not have a lot to do. This committee will be one of the most important
committees there is.
I say, in closing, to my friend from Maine, when I first came to the
Senate, I received a phone call from Howard Metzenbaum. Howard
Metzenbaum said: We finished--I think it is called the Steering
Committee--and you are going to the Appropriations Committee. I was so
excited about that. He said: You have a choice of two other committees
you can go on--either Environment and Public Works or Government
Operations.
I said: Senator Metzenbaum, I am so thrilled about being able to be
on Appropriations. You decide which one I should go on.
He said: It does not matter. They are both great committees.
He chose for me Environment and Public Works. One reason he chose
that is because in those days--I don't know if it is still the same
way--a member of the Government Operations Committee, even though you
were a new member, you were entitled to a staff person, someone
assigned to you. They figured they would give that plum to someone
else.
My point being, the Government Operations Committee has always been a
good committee, but it is going to be a really good committee now. I
think it will be on the par of Armed Services. I think it will be on
the par with any committee we have. I will sleep well knowing that my
friend, the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and
my friend, the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, will be
the two leading that committee. I know they have the ability to do a
good job in meeting all the responsibilities this new committee has,
including all the responsibilities they had to start with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as I was listening to the Senator from
Nevada, it brought back memories of the night when he started reading
from a book he wrote. I think it was about, if I remember correctly,
Searchlight, NV. I was listening that evening to him, and much to my
surprise, I actually got caught up in the story of Searchlight, NV. It
was delightfully told, and although the Senator was clearly killing
time that evening, I learned a lot about his upbringing and his talent
in telling a story.
This afternoon, I feel we have once again seen his talent in telling
a story. I think it is unfortunate that the Senator from Nevada is
personalizing this debate. This debate has nothing to do with the
Senator from Maine. The authority over homeland security could have
been given to a brandnew committee or some other committee.
What is important to me is that we try to address the recommendation
made by the 9/11 Commission. I want to read that recommendation because
it is very clear, it is very straightforward. It says:
Congress should create a single, principal point of
oversight and review for homeland security.
It goes on to say:
Congress does have the obligation to choose one in the
House and one in the Senate. . . .
It certainly says the congressional leaders are best able to judge
which committee should have jurisdiction over this Department and its
duties, but it makes very clear that it should be a single committee,
and we have not come close to doing this.
I admire the Senator from Nevada. He was extremely helpful to me when
I was managing the intelligence reform bill over 10 days' time. I
looked to him often for advice. I admire his experience and his
knowledge, but the recommendation is very clear. It says ``a single,
principal point of oversight.'' It says ``choose one.'' It does not say
which one. It did not have to be Governmental Affairs. It could have
been a new committee. It could have been some other committee. But it
says ``choose one,'' and we did not choose one. This plan does not even
come close to choosing one.
We know that between the House and the Senate, the Department has to
report to some 88 committees and subcommittees. Here in the Senate, I
think it is around 26 committees and subcommittees. We reduced those by
maybe one or two. We still have the Judiciary Committee with
significant jurisdiction. We still have the Commerce Committee with
jurisdiction over the two largest agencies within the Department of
Homeland Security--the Transportation Security Agency and the Coast
Guard. You can make a case that the Coast Guard has a lot of
nonhomeland security functions, but certainly the homeland security
functions of the Coast Guard should have been transferred to the new
committee. And certainly the TSA, the largest agency within the
Department of Homeland Security with 51,000 employees, should have been
transferred.
Under the proposal of the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from
Kentucky, certain responsibilities were transferred from the Judiciary
Committee, but those have been reversed in the course of this debate.
In fact, the first amendment on the floor had to do with a
Customs responsibility that had been transferred, and before either the
Senator from Maine or the Senator from Connecticut were even given the
courtesy of a phone call about that amendment, it was adopted by the
managers of the bill. They immediately transferred away from the new
committee some jurisdiction. Then they went on to suggest the adoption
of other amendments as well.
My point is this: This jurisdiction does not have to come to
Governmental Affairs, but what it should go to is a single committee.
We should not pretend we are fulfilling the recommendation of the 9/11
Commission--the very specific recommendation of the 9/11 Commission--
that Congress should vest this responsibility in a single committee
because we have not come close to that.
That is the issue. The issue is not whether Governmental Affairs is
the right committee. The issue is not whether Governmental Affairs has
other jurisdiction. The issue is, are we going to try to follow the
recommendation--the very strong recommendation--of the 9/11 Commission
to consolidate oversight of the Department within one congressional
committee. Are we going to follow the advice--no, the plea--of
Secretary Tom Ridge that we consolidate jurisdiction so he and his top
officials do not have to be constantly racing up to the Hill to testify
rather than concentrating on the security of our country, because that
is what this is about.
This is not about turf battles--this should not be about turf
battles. This should not be about power plays. This should not be about
power grabs. It is about how we can best improve congressional
oversight over a department that is critical to the security of this
[[Page S10788]]
country, and that is the Department of Homeland Security.
The Senator from Nevada referred to the Senator from Connecticut.
Perhaps he missed some of the debate yesterday. He is extremely
attentive to the floor, but at times did step out. The Senator from
Connecticut could not have made clearer yesterday his disappointment
with this resolution, and he argued against the amendments that even
the modest transfers provided in the Reid-McConnell resolution.
The staff of the Senator from Connecticut has told me they are
certain the Senator from Connecticut would want me, since he is not
able to be here today, to make very clear to his colleagues in the
Senate that he shares, indeed he mirrors, my concerns.
The Senator from Connecticut has worked very hard to make sure the
major recommendations of the 9/11 Commission are implemented, and that
is not what we are doing here.
At best, we are taking a very modest step forward, but let's not
pretend that we are in any way implementing the recommendations for a
single congressional committee in the Senate to have jurisdiction over
the Department of Homeland Security.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business
for a period of 5 minutes.
Mr. REID. No objection, as long as the time continues to be counted
against the 30 hours.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2823
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 711, S. 2823.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
(Several Senators addressed the Chair.)
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, you can see by my unanimous consent request
the alarm I brought to the Senate floor just now. The reason that
happened is because I was attempting to bring to the floor a very
critical issue that this Congress and this Senate have refused to
address this year. It is a bill called AgJOBS. It is a bill that has
more than 60 Members of this body as cosponsors, and yet it is a bill
that nobody wants to talk about right now and nobody wants to deal with
in the final hours of this 108th Congress.
The reason I brought it up now, and I worked it through the Rule XIV
process over the last several weeks, is because when we talk about
homeland security, we are talking about border security, we are talking
immigration reform, we are talking about identifying 8 to 12 million
undocumented foreign nationals in this country.
We have seen this Congress, this Senate, toil mightily over the last
2 weeks to try to address the 9/11 Commission's study and to reshape
our intelligence community, to enhance our national security and
homeland security. But this Congress has left one part of that effort
unfinished.
This year, we have refused to address one of the greatest problems in
our country, and that is an immigration policy that has resulted in 8
to 12 million undocumented workers.
For the last 5 years, I and others have tried to deal with one small
aspect of this issue, those foreign nationals who come to our country
in agriculture. There are about 1.6 million individuals in our
agricultural work force, and most of them are undocumented. Yet they
come here to work and harvest our fields and to process our foods, to
allow this great agriculture of ours to be the most abundant in the
world, and yet we will not give them a reasonable and legal status so
they can continue to work, continue to return home across our borders
with a degree of fluidity, without fear to go to their families. The
current system has effectively locked them inside this country, in the
shadows.
We have created for ourselves a monstrous problem, and the American
public knows it. It is all about homeland security, and it is all about
border security, and yet, oh, my goodness, we just could not get to it
this year.
I have worked for several years to produce the AgJOBS legislation. It
is bipartisan. Senator Ted Kennedy is my primary cosponsor, and we have
worked very hard to keep it bipartisan. The numbers on the same bill
have grown rapidly in the House, because this is an issue whose time
has come and yet somehow we just do not have time to get to it.
So I thought it was important one more time, in the waning hours of
the 108th Congress, to try to bring it to the floor and at least talk a
little bit about it. When I risked bringing it to the floor, my
goodness, papers flew and chairs tipped over as people rushed to the
microphones to object. Is it a matter of timing? Is it a matter of
opposition to reform? Oh, no, it is a matter of, gee, we just do not
want to talk about this issue this year.
Let me serve notice to the Senate right now--I do not oftentimes do
this--but when there are more than 60 Members of this body who are
ready to debate an issue and vote on it, We will get a vote. With a
bipartisan coalition nationwide of more than 400 groups that have come
together, from the American Farm Bureau to the United Farm Workers,
saying, for goodness' sake, Government, get your act together, solve
this problem, create a program that moves us forward, that gives a
legal status for people to work in this country who do the kind of work
that many Americans would choose not to do, we will get a vote. That is
what the AgJOBS is about. It means the reduction of illegal immigration
by a reasonable program that allows that kind of safe, productive,
economically beneficial movement in our country.
Of the nearly 12 million undocumented population, the vast majority
do not create or even pose any threat. They are here, they are hard
working, they work 12 and 14 hours a day, and they save their money,
because they want to feed their families, they want a better life for
their children, they want the same opportunity that has always beckoned
hard working people to America. Some of them would like to be U.S.
citizens; many would not. Many want to go home to their families across
the border or overseas at the end of the work season. They are here to
better themselves and to better their families, something all Americans
can understand.
By their presence, they better us. They make our lives better, and in
this issue with American agriculture, there is no question, they help
to produce the abundance on the supermarket shelves and the family
tables of America.
When I said ``serve notice,'' here is what I am serving: I will not
give up on getting a vote on this bill and passing it. The bill is
ready to move now. Its time has come. I have been trying to move it
this year. If we don't move it this year, when we get back this next
Congress, this bill will move. We will vote on this issue. If not the
old Congress, then the new Congress will face this issue. They will
face it in a variety of ways.
Some will say, let us do a large, all-inclusive immigration bill.
Fine, while the committees are spending the 10 or 12 months or 2 years
to try to figure that one out, we are going to vote on this one because
it is a small piece of a very large puzzle, but it is the right piece.
It will show we can cooperatively do what we ought to do in a fair and
responsible way to create an earned status so these folks can work here
in a legal way and can move freely back and forth across the borders,
dominantly between the United States and Mexico, but clearly with other
countries of the world, too. We want to eliminate these human hazards
of the kind that have been created along the Mexican-American border,
where last year more than 300 people died, many of them in the deserts,
in the hot sun, or being smuggled in the back of trucks, trying to get
here to work, because we have a program that does not function.
That is why I came to the floor, and I am sorry if I caused undue
alarm on the part of some of my colleagues. I was quite confident that
at some point someone would object because some would argue this
issue's time has not yet come. It will come. It may be January,
February, or March of 2005, but it will be on this floor for a full,
constructive, and positive debate and a vote up
[[Page S10789]]
or down, possibly with the opportunity for some amendments, because
this is legislation that now demands our consideration.
Americans want our borders controlled. They want undocumented foreign
nationals identified in our country. This is a small step in the right
direction of that effort to accomplish that goal.
Amnesty is not the solution. It has been tried before and it has
failed.
The current system has not worked either, and opposition to amnesty
should not be an excuse for tolerating a dysfunctional status quo.
AgJOBS avoids the problems and limitations of past initiatives and
other proposals. AgJOBS is the only proposal that addresses the problem
for both the short term and the long term.
In the long term, when willing American workers can not be found to
work in our fields, that shortage would be addressed through a reformed
H-2A program. The current program is so burdensome and costly that it
now supplies only about 2 percent of our farm workers. It will take
time to implement reforms that allow H-2A to meet our needs with legal
guest workers.
In the short run, while H-2A reforms are being implemented, the
earned adjustment program in AgJOBS would stabilize our current
agricultural work force. Trusted, proven workers who have already been
working here in 2003 and 2002 and before would be allowed to stay and
continue to work.
A reformed H-2A program, made workable with the red tape cut out,
would meet future work force needs and mean the earned adjustment
program would not have to be repeated.
A realistic, workable guest worker program actually would reduce
illegal immigration.
The last time the United States had a substantial agricultural guest
worker program, apprehensions of undocumented workers actually
plummeted, from almost 900,000 in 1953 to a low of 45,336 in 1959.
Whatever other aspects of this so-called ``bracero'' program were
subject to criticism, history proved that its 500,000 farm workers
entered our country legally, worked in jobs citizens did not want,
obeyed our laws, returned home at the end of the work season, and
dramatically reduced the demand for, and supply of, undocumented labor.
Increased enforcement of our laws is part of the solution, and we've
made progress.
In the last decade, we have tripled the number of agents enforcing
border and immigration laws.
Worker identification checks have intensified.
Apprehensions have skyrocketed above 900,000 a year and formal
removals have increased sixfold.
High-tech initiatives are coming online.
We are poised to take up the FY 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations
bill, which again increases resources in this area.
However, more enforcement is only part of the answer.
This is demonstrated by the fact that, despite more enforcement, over
the last decade, the undocumented population has more than doubled.
The self-described ``experts'' who say, ``Just round them up and
deport them,'' are only proposing an excuse, not a solution, while the
situation just gets worse. That is the cruelest amnesty of all.
Instead, we must manage our borders and our immigration system
better.
AgJOBS is a critical part of doing just that--managing our borders
better and improving our homeland security by bringing hundreds of
thousands of individuals up out of the shadows and into a legal system.
We can never neglect the humanitarian side of this, as well, that we
should treat with dignity and humaneness those who labor to put the
food on our families' tables.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. It is a privilege to join Senator Craig today in urging
the Senate to pass this important jobs bill for immigrants in
agriculture. We have been struggling for decades to find a solution to
the heart-wrenching problems facing so many farm workers for so long.
The Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act--
AgJOBS--is an opportunity to correct these long-festering problems. In
a landmark agreement, both the United Farm Workers and the agricultural
industry support this solution. It gives farm workers and their
families the dignity and opportunity they deserve, and it gives farm
owners a legal workforce.
The bill is a compromise, and it has 63 Senate sponsors, with almost
equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. More than 400 organizations
across the country support it. They include advocates for farm workers,
such as the United Farm Workers, the Farm Labor Organizing Community,
and the Farm Worker Justice Fund. They include business groups such as
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Council of Agricultural
Employers, the American Nursery and Landscape Association, and the
American Farm Bureau Federation. They include civil rights groups such
as the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Latino organizations such
as the National Council of LaRaza, the Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund, and the League of United Latin American Citizens.
It is a bill whose time has come. In fact, we should have passed it
long before now, because the need is so great, and the current
situation is so untenable. For economic, security, and humanitarian
reasons, Congress ought to complete action on this legislation before
we adjourn for the year.
The AgJOBS bill is good for both business and labor. The Nation can
no longer ignore the fact that more than half of our agricultural
workers are undocumented immigrants. Growers need a reliable and legal
workforce. Workers need legal status to improve their wages and working
conditions. Everyone is harmed when crops rot in the field because of
the lack of an adequate labor force.
The AgJOBS bill provides a fair and reasonable process for these
agricultural workers to earn legal status. It reforms the current visa
program, so that employers unable to obtain American workers can hire
the foreign workers they need.
Undocumented farm workers are easily and unfairly exploited by
unscrupulous contractors and growers. Their illegal status deprives
them of bargaining power and depresses the wages of all farm workers.
Our bill provides fair solutions for undocumented workers who have been
toiling in our fields, harvesting our fruits and vegetables.
The bill is not an amnesty. To earn the right to remain in this
country, workers have to demonstrate past work contributions to the
U.S. economy, and also make a substantial future work commitment. These
men and women will finally be able to come out of the shadows, identify
themselves, and provide evidence that they have worked in agriculture,
so that they can continue to work hard and play by the rules.
Hard-working migrant farm workers are essential to American
agriculture. We need an honest agriculture policy that recognizes the
contributions of these workers and respects and rewards their work.
The legislation will also modify the current temporary foreign
agricultural worker program, and it does so in a way that preserves and
enhances key labor protections. It strikes a fair balance. It also
benefits employers, by streamlining the visa application process and
reducing paperwork for employers.
This legislation will also unify families. When temporary residence
is granted, a farm worker's spouse and minor children will be allowed
to remain legally in the United States, but they will not be authorized
to work. When the worker becomes a permanent resident, the spouse and
minor children will also be granted that status.
In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, we can no
longer accept policies that fail to protect our borders. Congress has
periodically invested millions of dollars to increase the number of
immigration border patrol agents, improve surveillance technology, and
install other controls to strengthen border enforcement, especially
along our southwest border. Yet, almost everyone agrees that these
steps have failed to stop illegal immigration. The proof is in the
numbers--several hundred thousand people a year continue to enter the
United States illegally, and a significant part of the workforce in
many sectors of the economy, especially agriculture, is undocumented.
[[Page S10790]]
One major unintended effect of our border enforcement strategy has
been to shift illegal border crossings to the harsh desert and mountain
terrains along the border, causing significant increases in deaths.
According to the U.S. Border Patrol, since 1998 nearly 2000 people have
died attempting to make the difficult journey across that border.
Desperate migrants are being drawn into criminal smuggling syndicates,
which increase the danger of violence to border patrol officers, border
communities, and the workers themselves. As Stephen Flynn, an expert on
terrorism, noted at a recent Congressional hearing, these ``draconian
measures'' have produced chaos at our borders, which ``makes it ideal
for exploitation by criminals and terrorists.''
The AgJOBS bill will make legality the norm and reduce illegal
immigration. It provides reasonable rules that are realistic and
enforceable. It replaces the chaotic, deadly, and illegal flows at our
borders with orderly, safe, and legal avenues for these farm workers
and their families. A workable and legal program for foreign workers
crossing our borders will strengthen our security, substantially reduce
crime and enable immigration enforcement authorities to focus their
resources on terrorists and criminals trying to enter the country
illegally. We need laws that recognize reality, so that legality is the
rule, not the exception.
In this post-9/11 world, we cannot afford to ignore the fact any
longer that so much of today's agricultural workforce is undocumented.
The AgJOBS bill enhances our national security and makes out
communities safer. It brings undocumented farm workers and their
families out of the shadows and makes it possible for them to pass
thorough security checks. It shrinks the pool of law enforcement
targets and enables law enforcement officers to give priority to
terrorists and criminals. It will make our communities safer, because
once immigrants become legal, they will no longer fear deportation if
they report crimes to law enforcement officers.
Reducing the size of the undocumented population also reduces the
ability of suspected terrorists to hide. The half million or more
undocumented farm workers eligible for this program will undergo
rigorous security checks when they apply for legal status. Future
temporary workers will be carefully screened to meet security concerns.
Law enforcement resources will be more effectively focused on the
highest risks.
Opponents of this legislation offer no workable solutions to the
serious problems of current law. Yet they have blocked our efforts for
a genuine debate on the issue. We cannot be complacent any longer. I
urge my colleagues to support this needed legislation. It is long past
time to end these dangerous conditions, and to do it in a way that not
only improves the lives and working conditions of all farm workers, but
also enhances the security of our Nation. I urge my colleagues to
approve this legislation, and I look forward to its enactment into law
as soon as possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. ENSIGN. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada wishes to speak;
also the Senator from Louisiana. Even though there has not been a lot
of order here today, I wonder if we could attempt, at least for a short
time--how much time does the Senator wish to speak?
Mr. ENSIGN. I would like to speak for 10 minutes in morning business.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Nevada, 15 minutes in morning business.
The Senator from Louisiana, 15 minutes. So 15 minutes to the Senator
from Nevada, Senator Ensign, followed by the Senator from Louisiana, 15
minutes, and then we would return to a quorum. Is that appropriate? I
ask consent.
Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. REID. It is 15, 15, go back to a quorum.
Mr. HARKIN. OK.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Nevada for
allowing us to cooperate to get some time to talk about a couple of
issues that are related to what we are talking about today.
I want to talk about the Duelfer report that has been reported widely
in the papers are in our national news in the last several days.
The Duelfer report proves one thing--Senator Kerry was right about
the coalition of the bribed and coerced. They were the countries that
opposed the war in Iraq. They were the corrupt members of the U.N.
Security Council who were brought off by Saddam Hussein.
Back in June, when I introduced the Oil-For-Food Accountability Act,
I stated that I believed Saddam Hussein, corrupt U.N. officials, and
corrupt well-connected countries were the real benefactors of the Oil-
for-Food program. I noted there was evidence that they profited from
illegal oil shipments, financial transactions, kickbacks, and
surcharges that allowed Saddam Hussein to build up his armed forces and
live in the lap of luxury.
The just-released 1,200-page CIA report confirms those allegations
and details even more. The report states that some $10.9 billion,
that's billion with a ``B'', was secretly skimmed from the U.N. oil-
for-food program for Saddam to use as he pleased.
The report outlines how Saddam Hussein used lavish gifts of oil
vouchers and contracts to secure the support of countries to lift U.N.
sanctions on Iraq and oppose American initiatives in the Security
Council. And this might be the most important point I make today--an
Iraqi Intelligence report indicated that one nation--France--was bribe
to use its veto in the U.N. Security Council againts any effort to use
armed forces in Iraq, and France later threatened to do just that.
France was not the only culprit in corruption. France was joined by
Russia and China--also permanent members of the U.N. Security Council--
as the top three countries in which influential individuals, companies
or entities received oil vouchers. According to the report, Russia
received 30 percent of the vouchers, France 15 percent and China 10
percent.
The real ``coalition of the bribed and coerced'' is the three members
of the U.N. Security Council that were bought and sold by Saddam
Hussein. The three members of the Security Council that profited
immensely as long as Saddam Hussen remained in power.
The oil voucher system used by Saddam through the U.N. Oil-For-Food
program was clever in that the vouchers were negotiable and could be
resold to oil companies or other buyers at profits of 10 to 35 cents
per barrel.
A voucher for 10 million barrels could generate between $1 million
and $3.5 million to the holder of those vouchers.
The report notes that Benon Sevan, the former top U.N. Official in
charge of the oil-for-food program was himself a recipent of Saddam's
scheme. The report says that Mr. Sevan was allocated 13 million barrels
of oil, of which 7.3 million were cashed in. There is also information
about how Saddam's illicit oil profits were used to rearm Iraq. The
report details how Saddam's deals with Chinese companies helped Iraq
improve its missile capabilities. Russian companies provided barrels
for antiaircraft guns, missile components, and missile-guidance
electronics. French military contractors offered to supply Saddam
Hussein with helicopters, spare parts for fighter aircraft and air
defense systems. On the WMD front, Duelfer reports that using the Oil-
for-Food program, Saddam Hussein was making a point of procuring the
resources and establishing the networks to start a massive effort to
produce chemical-weapons production just months after sanctions were
lifted.
With Saddam's coalition of the bribed and coerced in place as three
of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, no amount of
coalition-building by an American president was going to preserve the
sanctions on Saddam Hussein. No amount of diplomacy was going to get
those countries to enforce Security Council resolutions by force. They
were permanent members on Saddam's payroll. The CIA report notes that
Saddam had succeeded: to the point where sitting members of
[[Page S10791]]
the Security Council were actively violating resolutions passed by the
Security Council.
So when I hear talk about some kind of a global test, or the need for
UN Security Council approval for the use of force this Senator turns
away in disgust because, with the release of the Duelfer report, we
have names, dates, and amounts of bribes to prove that our critics,
including the UN, do not have the moral authority to judge our actions.
They are not motivated by security interests, humanitarian needs or any
other noble cause. They are motivated by greed. America's freedom to
use force wisely and justly is truly the world's best hope for peace
and security. God bless President George W. Bush for having the courage
to stand by his convictions.
He is doing his job. It is time, now, for the U.S. Senate to follow
the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I think under the unanimous consent
agreement that I am entitled to speak for the next 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
TAX RELIEF
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada makes some
interesting points. I will have more to say about that specific issue
later, as will other Senators from this side. But I am glad that he
brought up the point of greed because it is actually something that I
am going to speak about myself but as it relates to a different aspect,
a different bill, and a different issue, but basically the same
``sin,'' if you will.
Unfortunately, it is not our allies who are committing this sin, it
is us right here. We are debating now, over the course of the next
several days, and have actually been debating for 2 years, a tax relief
bill prompted by the World Trade Organization's decision that some of
the things in our U.S. Tax Code were contrary to the free trade
principles that most of us--not all of us but most of us--espouse. So
that decision set in motion a very necessary effort to address that
decision by changing some things in our Tax Code.
Of course, anytime you open up the Tax Code there are many people
interested in changing the words, the letters, the titles, the
paragraphs, and the provisions. Sometimes a change in one word could
mean a $1 billion windfall for a particular company, or millions of
dollars of windfall for particular entities. There is a lot of interest
every time this body opens up a tax bill.
Two years ago when it came to the attention of some of us that a tax
bill would be opened, and then as the 9/11 tragedy happened and as we
saw men and women from our States going to the front lines to fight in
Afghanistan and Iraq, and as we watched some of our health units,
particularly in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, right here in
Washington, DC, and Virginia respond to some very tough casualties that
this country experienced, some of us began to think: What could we do
in this tax bill to honor the men and women who are on the front lines?
Not being on the Finance Committee, I wasn't aware of all the
specific aspects, but I knew there would be maybe hundreds or thousands
of entities, corporations, big and small, groups that thought they were
entitled to some sort of tax break.
For the life of me, I didn't think we would have any trouble at all
when a group of us got together--Senator Boxer being one, Senator
Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, Senator Bond,
the Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, and many others--and
thought, having been to a lot of parades and flag-waving ceremonies for
our troops, maybe there would be a way we could help them in this tax
bill.
I know it is not the focus, but we figured--or I thought--there would
be lots of other people who were trying to get in. So why don't we try
to get our troops in? The good part of this story is we did in the
Senate, with the help of Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus, and many
members on the Senate Finance Committee who worked long hours, many
weeks, many months negotiating a bill that would correct the original
problem that the World Trade Organization had, and provide some tax
relief, according to their views and other people who wanted tax
relief; we put in a tax benefit of $2 billion for the men and women who
are actually on the front lines, the guardsmen and reservists who have
become a larger and larger component of our fighting force, who leave
their regular jobs, leave their families, and leave their regular
civilian life, put on their uniforms and go to the front lines.
We know from reports which we have read and from our own experience
representing our Guard and Reserve in our own States that 40 percent of
these men and women take a cut in pay to go to the front lines. Not
only do they take the bullet, not only do their Humvees get blown up on
patrols, but they also take a cut in pay to go.
Some of us had the notion that maybe in this bill, whether it was
going to be $350 billion or $75 billion or $100 billion, now it is $137
billion--I would like to show you what that looks like. This is only
part of it. This is what a bill looks like that has tax relief
provisions of $137 billion. This is just part of it. I am going to get
the rest of it because it is a lot of pages.
Some of us had the foolish notion that maybe the Congress could find
one page, one paragraph, one letter to include tax relief for American
businesses that are doing the right thing, the patriotic thing, by
filling the pay gap that these men and women are experiencing. When
they leave their civilian life and they put the uniform on, and they
pick up their paychecks from the Army, Air Force, or the Navy, they get
a substantial cut in pay. Some of the employers are making them whole
and doing the right thing, the patriotic thing. We thought surely in
this tax bill we could give a tax credit to those small businesses
because times are not good everywhere in some States and communities.
Really, the whole economy is weaker than we had expected and these
small businesses are struggling.
But I don't know why Chairman Thomas from California who wrote the
bill, and the House leadership of Congressman DeLay and Speaker
Hastert, couldn't find one page or paragraph to include them. So they
were left out. They weren't in the top of the list, they weren't in the
middle of the list, and they were not at the bottom of the list. They
are not on the list.
We stand here and talk all weekend about our intelligence
reorganization to secure ourselves. We talk about spending and the
investment in our defense to secure ourselves. Let me just ask anyone
who would want to come to this floor, or Chairman Thomas, if he is
listening to me, what could we be thinking if we are not even keeping
the paychecks of the men and women on the front lines whole? No bonus,
no extra, just keep their paycheck whole, just to keep their house
payments up, just to keep the car notes for their spouse who is at home
so they can continue to work and transport the children, just keep the
children's trust funds moving along so they don't have to make that up
when they come home--what could they be thinking? They weren't thinking
very well on the House side. They took it out.
If we could afford $2.5 trillion in tax cuts in 2001, I think we
could at least allocate one-tenth of 1 percent to our troops on the
front lines who are protecting us today.
I want to say another thing to the businesses that are in this bill.
I have a lot of companies in Louisiana that are going to benefit from
this bill. I have not a word to say about that. I am happy they are in.
I am sure they have good reasons. I am sure it is going to help create
jobs.
But I have a word to say to the businesses in the United States of
America. No business would be here, no business could operate, no
business would have international trade, no business would have
stockholders, no business would have a profit sheet, no businesspeople
would be paying taxes on profits they made if it were not for the men
and women in uniform who go to the front lines every time we have a
conflict, a peacekeeping mission or a war to undertake to protect their
commercial interests.
I am confident that the businesspeople who are represented in this
bill know that. I know they are not going to blame me for taking a few
days to talk about it. I know they will say, Senator, you are right. We
are
[[Page S10792]]
grateful to the men and women in uniform. We are actually a little
embarrassed because we are in the bill and they are not. It is not
their fault. It is nobody's fault. But the House leadership who wrote
the bill left them out.
We have in this bill help for investors who want to invest in a
subway system in Paris. I like NASCAR. Lots of people in my State go to
NASCAR races. We have tax relief for NASCAR. We have tax relief for
ceiling fan importers with Home Depot. I shop at Home Depot. I like
Home Depot. But we left out the Guard and Reserve.
I don't know. I am just starting to think that unless the cameras are
on nobody remembers the truth. It is only the photo opportunities or
the rallies or the parades that everybody goes to. We wear the pins and
the flags, but when it comes to the budget and to the tax bill, we
leave them out.
I don't think our troops need a lobbyist. I thought we were their
advocates. Mr. President, $137 billion and we could not allocate $2
billion, not $1 billion, not half a billion?
I will speak about this as often as possible for the next couple of
days. I tell my leadership, I don't want to make people's lives
miserable. I am happy to talk with our leadership and the Republican
leadership about any time agreements that make people's weekends
convenient, but I could not in good conscience not spend some hours--
whether it is 2, 5, 10, or 30--talking about the 5,000 men and women
who have been deployed out of Louisiana, who are on the front lines,
whose employers, whom I know personally, are making their paychecks
whole.
We had the chance to help out small business, to help our National
Guard and Reserve. Somebody, somewhere, on the other side of this
Capitol made a decision that is immoral, unconscionable, and most
certainly not justifiable.
I will present for the record some names of families. I will present
some hardship cases so the record is clear about the kind of families
we have turned our backs on and the kind of employers who are doing the
very best they can. While they are hiring a replacement, because they
obviously need the job done, and sending the paycheck overseas, the
Government of the United States, which is supposed to be on their side,
decides we do not want to help them because we have higher priorities.
What higher priorities could we possibly have in the Tax Code at this
time? If any one of my colleagues wants to explain to me and anyone
else what could be a higher priority, I would appreciate it. If there
is something else in here for the Guard and Reserve, for the military,
to support our troops directly, please tell me. Maybe I didn't get to
read the whole report.
I was on the Armed Services Committee for several years. Eventually,
I hope to be on Defense Appropriations where I can do more work along
this line. I know one thing, last year the Guard and Reserve, despite
the fact these are the most dedicated and patriotic men and women--they
will go the distance. They do not complain. They do not even like to
say what is wrong because they feel sacrifice is what they do. I
understand that. They came 5,000 people short of their retention goals.
Could it possibly be because, although the soldiers do not mind making
the sacrifice, they are getting belly sick of their spouses and their
wives and children making sacrifices more than the rest of us are
making? Why can't we sacrifice and help them? Why do they have to
continue to make the sacrifice? When we have the opportunity, we say
no.
Drastic pay cuts, bankruptcies, foreclosures--these aren't exactly
the kinds of challenges members of the American military reserve signed
up for when they volunteered to put their life on the line for us and
for a country as great as this. For all of our pompous talk about how
patriotic we are in this Congress, the least we can do is keep their
paycheck whole.
Let me talk about three families I actually know. I will be in the
Chamber talking about more.
Janet Wright is from Hammond, LA. Her husband Russell is in the
Marine Corps. I have the Marine Corps pin on today in honor of our men
and women. He makes $60,000 a year in the civilian world. He was
activated and made only $30,000. He took a 50-percent pay cut. Mrs.
Wright said that after a couple of months she started to put water
in her children's cereal while her husband was gone because she had to
count every penny. That is what happens when we give out $137 billion:
We cannot help the Wrights. We don't have enough money to help the
Wrights, so they have to put water in the children's cereal bowls.
Scott is a Navy reservist from California. He lost his home when he
was activated and he lost nearly $1,000 a month in pay because the Navy
job was different than the civilian. People say, Senator, that is
impossible. There is a law that protects people from losing their home.
I know that. You cannot foreclose on someone's home when they are on
the front line. But the problem is, the bills add up and when they have
to come home, if they have not paid those monthly notes and they cannot
pay it within a certain amount of time, the foreclosure happens.
I don't understand how we don't have any money to fix it. How can I
go home and tell my Guard and Reserve, I'm sorry, we didn't have any
money, but here is $137 billion we gave out to everybody else? I am not
going to do it. I can't go home. So I would as soon stay here because I
don't have a thing I can tell them, not a thing I can say.
I will tell more stories about real people. They are calling my
office right now and sending letters. We are getting a lot of e-mails.
I will come down here until I hear from Chairman Thomas. We are sending
a letter to the President at 6 o'clock today.
Let me say on the record I don't think the President of the United
States knows they were left out. He has a lot on his mind. I understand
that. And I know this is only one of a thousand things he has to
consider, literally, weekly. But I am sending him a letter to let him
know. I cannot amend this bill; it is beyond my power to amend it. It
is against the rules. But the bill could be vetoed and this could be
included. Or the President could send a message to his House leadership
that says, you must have made a mistake; we should have included this.
We obviously could afford it and he could promise to fix it.
I hope that is a response we will get over the next couple of days. I
don't know. I know he is very busy on many other things right now.
There will be a big debate tonight, but this is something I had to
bring to our attention.
Over 410,000 members of the National Guard and Reserve have been
activated since September 11. Secretary Rumsfeld has predicted that
number may go up to 640,000. That is a lot of families dependent on us
to make good decisions for them. This was not a good decision made by
the House leadership. I will do everything in my power to get them to
change their mind, to change the bill, or to promise they will put in
this $2 billion or $3 billion--whatever it will cost to close this pay
gap--so the men and women who leave your State of Illinois or my State
of Louisiana or the Senator's State of Ohio or the Senator's State of
Massachusetts, when the soldiers leave to go overseas, they have
confidence that when we have a chance to help them keep their pay
whole, keep their benefits intact, give them some support in the
spousal support program we have established, we are there for them.
I understand the Senator from Massachusetts will speak and I
understand the Senator from Iowa will yield the time to make that
possible. But if my colleagues are wondering why the process has slowed
down, why we are having a hard time getting a schedule for the next
couple of days, this is one of the reasons. This is the reason I am
voting against the bill and will be speaking about it as the days go
forward.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding that the majority has people who
want to speak. I know the Senator from North Carolina is here and
wishes to speak for 10 minutes and the Senator from Massachusetts
wishes to speak for up to 30 minutes. This would be as if in morning
business. Senator Kennedy will speak for up to 30 minutes. Of course,
the time counts against the 30 hours we are working under now. And we
would ask that the majority be recognized for up to 30 minutes, to
match that of the time for Senator Kennedy,
[[Page S10793]]
with the first 10 minutes being for the Senator from North Carolina,
and that time also be counted against the 30 hours. I ask unanimous
consent that be the order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, while my good friend the Senator from
Louisiana is in the Chamber, I commend her for the enormously
persuasive case she has made and say I agree with her 100 percent and
will certainly do everything I can to support her.
The point is, we passed this underlying bill in June, and the
conferees were appointed in July by the Senate of the United States.
The House of Representatives did not even appoint their conferees until
the end of last week, and did not have their first meeting until Monday
of this week, and we are trying to jam this legislation through the
Senate late in the afternoon on a Friday, and the cloture motion was
filed the first thing this morning before there was 1 minute of debate
on it.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I say that both in terms of the substance, which is so
powerful, and the process and the procedure in standing for the Guard
and Reserve, I commend the leader. There is an arrogance among the
chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Republican
leadership that ends up and results in this kind of a situation where
they say: Well, there won't be people over there who will stand for the
Guard and Reserve. We will send it over there late either last night,
which they would have done if they had been able to get these printed
up, or we will have it over there on Friday morning, and they will all
want to take off on Friday, so they will go ahead and pass it. That is
the view.
I commend the Senator from Louisiana for the substance and commend
her for the process as well. And I will take the time not just at this
moment but also to comment about the same legislation, how Chairman
Thomas and the Republican leadership are prepared to take care of the
tobacco companies but not take care of America's children. That was the
choice. You could have done both. I would have supported looking out
after tobacco farmers who are having difficulties on that. I would have
supported having the tobacco companies pay for that particular bailout.
But it should have included the protection of America's children, and
the Republican leadership refused to do that.
It refused to look out after American workers. We have passed--three
times in the Senate, twice in the House of Representatives--a
prohibition against this administration's repeal of the overtime
provisions that affect 6 million of our fellow workers, primarily the
first responders. Police and firefighters and nurses: They are three of
the largest groups that were going to be affected. We passed that three
times. The House of Representatives passed it twice.
We had 5 minutes of discussion on it from the proponents of it in the
same conference. I was there. So that is certainly one of the reasons
that we speak and we are so concerned about those provisions. We will
have a chance to address those matters. But I do want to speak to the
Senate on two other matters briefly this afternoon.
Afghan Elections
Madam President, one is the greatest intelligence failures in our
history occurred on 9/11, and the seeds of that disaster were planted
long ago in Afghanistan, whose people will participate tomorrow in the
historic election to select their next President. I know my colleagues
share my deep respect for the Afghan people and the many others
who worked so hard in recent months to make these elections possible.
The elections already have been postponed three times, and the
parliamentary elections that were to be held this weekend have now been
delayed until next year. President Karzai has shown tremendous courage
and determination in the face of multiple assassination attempts. He
and the vast majority of the Afghan people have demonstrated an
impressive commitment to a free and democratic Afghanistan.
Yet Afghanistan still faces fundamental threats to the casting of
ballots on Saturday, let alone its long-term stability and prosperity.
Elections are vitally important to the process of rebuilding a free
country, but they are not a panacea for the myriad of problems that
face the people in Afghanistan. Those problems will still be there the
day after the elections, and the Bush administration, Congress, and the
American people cannot afford to be distracted from the ongoing efforts
that will be required to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan.
We made that mistake once before in Afghanistan, in the aftermath of
the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, and the result was a failed nation that
became the breeding ground for the terrorists who attacked us on
September 11, 2001. We cannot afford to allow Afghanistan to fall into
chaos once again. Unfortunately, because of its misguided war in Iraq,
the Bush administration may bring us perilously close to doing just
that.
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, President
Bush rightly spoke about the need to put Afghanistan on the right
course. He welcomed then-Chairman of the Afghan Interim Authority Hamid
Karzai to the White House in January 2002, and said:
The United States is committed to building a lasting
partnership with Afghanistan. We will help the new Afghan
government provide the security that is the foundation for
peace.
Instead of finishing the job, however, President Bush foolishly and
recklessly diverted America's attention from the real war on terrorism
in Afghanistan by rushing to war in Iraq, a country that had no
operational links to al-Qaida terrorists.
We now know that President Bush began planning the invasion of Iraq
from the earliest days of his administration. Finding a rationale to
get rid of Saddam Hussein was on the agenda from day one of this
administration. Barely 3 months after the most vicious terrorist attack
on America, the President already began concentrating on Iraq, not
Afghanistan. On November 26, 2001, he said:
Afghanistan is still just the beginning.
And 3 days later, even before Hamid Karzai had been approved as
interim Afghan President, Vice President Cheney publicly began to send
signals about attacking Iraq. On November 29, he said:
I don't think it takes a genius to figure out this guy
[Saddam Hussein] is clearly . . . a significant potential
problem for the region, for the United States, for everybody
with interests in the area.
The shift was all but sealed by the time of President Bush's State of
the Union Address on January 29, 2002. Karl Rove had told the
Republican National Committee that terrorism could be used politically.
Remember that speech, that terrorism could be used politically? That is
Karl Rove in 2002: Republicans could ``go to the country on this
issue.''
In the State of the Union Address, President Bush unveiled his ``Axis
of Evil''--Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Those three words forged the
lockstep linkage between the Bush administration's top political
advisers and the Big Three: Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.
What did President Bush say about bin Laden in the State of the Union
Address that day? Nothing.
What did he say about al-Qaida? One fleeting mention.
What did he say about the Taliban? Nothing.
Nothing about bin Laden, a fleeting mention of al-Qaida, nothing
about the Taliban in that State of the Union Address.
With those words, we lost our clear focus on the most imminent threat
to our national security--Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. The President
had checked the box on Afghanistan and was poised to use the 9/11
attacks to advance his Iraq war agenda of a war on Iraq.
The consequences of that decision have been severe for the security
of Afghanistan and for the security of the American people. Without a
doubt, the war with Iraq has distracted us from the hunt for Osama bin
Laden.
The administration botched the battle at Tora Bora in December 2001.
By outsourcing the job to warlords in Afghanistan, he let Osama bin
Laden escape. Instead of sticking with the job of capturing bin Laden,
the administration launched a war with Iraq. Reports indicate that the
Bush administration shifted special operations soldiers and
[[Page S10794]]
Arab language specialists from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in
Iraq. And it recently pulled the State Department's extraordinarily
talented assistance coordinator for Afghanistan, William Taylor, out of
Afghanistan and sent him to Iraq. Saddam Hussein is behind bars, but he
did not attack America.
Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden is probably hiding somewhere in the
ungovernable tribal region between Afghanistan and Pakistan planning
another attack on America.
Security outside of Kabul is tenuous because we and our allies are
overstretched in Iraq and cannot commit sufficient troops in
Afghanistan. We have 140,000 troops in Iraq and our allies, another
20,000. It was al-Qaida operatives who trained in Afghanistan who
attacked America. Yet America has seven times more troops in Iraq than
in Afghanistan.
We obviously do not have enough soldiers to secure Afghanistan. It
was the lowest troop-to-population ratio of any postconflict country
during the past 60 years. President Karzai asked for 20,000 new troops
for election security at the NATO summit last June. The U.N. reportedly
estimated this summer that it would take somewhere between 5,000 and
15,000 additional troops to secure this Saturday's election. Sadly,
what NATO and the United States eventually provided fell far short of
that requirement--3,000 troops total. Spain agreed to send a battalion
to Afghanistan for election security only after the Government pulled
its troops out of Iraq. Our allies can't meet NATO requests for a
minimal increase in troops for Afghanistan because they too are bogged
down in Iraq.
This administration's lack of credibility with the international
community has made it almost impossible to obtain the necessary troop
commitments to win peace in Afghanistan. Because the international
community is unable to provide adequate security in Afghanistan, the
forces of the Taliban and al-Qaida continue to strike regularly. Most
experts believe that elements of the Pakistani security services
continue to support the Taliban and that Taliban forces are able to
move freely between Afghanistan and Pakistan and can launch attacks on
American and Afghan forces before retreating to their sanctuaries in
Pakistan.
The Bush administration's Ambassador to Afghanistan admits what has
become the obvious truth on the ground: The Taliban ranks are growing
in Afghanistan.
Our Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad told reporters in September:
With regard to Taliban, I have to say that there may have
been some growth in the numbers of their people that are
active. There has been some effort, obviously, at
recruitment, increased effort at recruitment in the refugee
camps and in the madrasas.
Ambassador Khalizad also tells us that he still sees a ``strong
link'' between al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Three years
after our invasion of Afghanistan to deny al-Qaida its sanctuary under
Taliban protection, the Taliban and al-Qaida still retain a strong
relationship in Afghanistan. How did the Bush administration ignore the
fact that America cannot be safe until Afghanistan is stable and al-
Qaida no longer has a haven there?
As a result of the poor security, President Karzai still does not
have full control over his country and is forced to negotiate with
warlords who control private militias with forces numbering in the tens
of thousands. A recent report by Human Rights Watch summarized the
issue well:
Political repression by the local strongmen is the
principal problem. Through the country, militarized political
factions . . . continue to cement their hold on political
power at the local level, using force, threats, and
corruption to stifle more legitimate political activity and
dominate the election process.
Our inability to secure Afghanistan means that opium production is at
record levels. Funds from the drug trade are being used to finance
attacks against our troops and against the Afghan people. They are
being used to operate the private armies of the warlords and rebuild
the ranks of the Taliban. They are pouring fuel on the fire of
instability and terrorism. Yet the administration failed to give a
priority to shutting off the drug trade in Afghanistan, and the result
has been predictably destructive.
Two weeks ago, Robert Charles, our Assistant Secretary of State for
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, painted an ominous picture
in his testimony in the House International Relations Committee. He
said:
On the narcotics front, tied like a ball and chain to
security, justice and economic development, we stand in the
darkness of a long shadow . . . President Karzai and other
Afghan officials have said that drug trafficking and the
corruption it breeds may be the biggest threat right now to
Afghan's long-term security and democratic future.
The CIA and the United Nations estimate that the crop of poppies for
2004 will be 20 to 40 percent greater than last year. That means 500
tons of heroin. No wonder Afghanistan now accounts for 75 percent of
the worldwide production of opium.
The long shadow that Robert Charles described is the shadow of our
misguided war in Iraq. The forces and resources we are pouring into
Iraq could have been used and should have been used to end the drug
trade in Afghanistan, regain control of the country from the warlords,
and dismantle their militias.
Last month, LTG Walter Sharp of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the
House International Relations Committee that less than half of the
approximately 40,000 people targeted in Afghanistan for disarmament had
actually been disarmed. The operations manager of the U.N. disarmament
program on the ground in Afghanistan told the Financial Times that
fewer than 10,000 of the targeted individuals had been disarmed.
Clearly, the effort to dismantle the private militias has fallen
drastically short with dangerous consequences for Afghan stability.
In June, local militias killed five aid workers from Doctors Without
Borders in a brutal attack. In July, that distinguished nongovernmental
organization pulled out of Afghanistan after 24 years of helping the
Afghan people. Their loss is a sad commentary on the continuing
violence and the Bush administration's misguided handling of
Afghanistan. The failure to crack down on the narcotics trade, the
continuing domination of much of the countryside by warlords, and the
inability of this administration to provide sufficient troops to
stabilize the country are major setbacks to the war on terrorism.
Clearly some progress has been made. I hope the elections tomorrow will
proceed without incident. But if we had not rushed to war with Iraq,
much greater progress could have been made and certainly would have
been made in Afghanistan, and America would be safer today. Yet
President Bush continues to deny this obvious reality. Incredibly, he
told a campaign rally in Ohio last week that as a result of the U.S.
military, the Taliban no longer is in existence.
Representative Ron Paul, a Republican Congressman from Texas, does
not agree. As he said on September 23:
A picture of Afghanistan has been painted, I think, overly
optimistic. You read the newspapers, what you're talking
about doesn't even exist from the reports that I have read
about what's really going on. And when you hear about the
Doctors Without Borders leaving, after having been there
through the Russian occupation. The U.N. wants to leave.
Protection of the president is very precarious. We don't know
what will come of that.
The airport's getting bombed. There's estimates that 90
percent of the country, at least a very large percent of the
country, is under the occupation of the Taliban and the
warlords. We have a serious disconnect here and we have to
be--as Americans and as members of Congress, we have to be
realistic and not hide from the realities of what is
happening.
That is from a Republican Congressman from Texas. I couldn't agree
more.
In the aftermath of 9/11, it was clear that America had to deal
effectively with Afghanistan as the highest priority for our national
security. It was clear that America could not be safe if Afghanistan
remained unstable. Instead of finishing the job, we rushed off to fight
a different war, the war in Iraq. We squandered the tremendous
worldwide good will that flowed to America after 9/11. We alienated
longtime friends and leaders in other nations on whom we heavily depend
for intelligence for support in the ongoing war against terrorism.
Distrust of America has soared throughout the world. We are especially
hated in the Muslim world. The past 2 years have seen the steepest and
deepest fall from grace our country has ever suffered in the eyes of
the world community in all our history.
[[Page S10795]]
All this is the heavy price our country has paid because of the war
in Iraq that America never should have fought. We cannot afford to
continue down this dangerous path of incompetence in foreign policy. We
know that America has to do better.
As I have said before, the only thing we have to fear is 4 more years
of George Bush.
Madam President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
Unemployment
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, earlier today, the Department of Labor
issued its report on the state of unemployment in the country. I want
to just comment on this. It is official now that President Bush will be
the first President since the days of Herbert Hoover and the Great
Depression--over 70 years ago--to preside over a net loss of jobs
during his Presidency.
Today's job numbers show that only 96,000 were created last month,
which is even lower than economists had predicted in order to keep up
with population growth. Even worse, a third of the jobs created were in
temporary positions. Another third were government jobs, which means
the private sector job creation is far from recovering.
The official unemployment rate is 5.4 percent, but the real rate of
unemployment and underemployment is 9.4 percent. More than 400,000
workers have stopped looking for work because they are so discouraged.
They are no longer counted in the official rate. Another 4.5 million
are working part time because they cannot find full-time jobs.
Part-time workers and temporary workers earn less money than full-
time permanent employees and often do not even receive benefits.
America's workers have been out of work for months. They have finally
found a job, but it is part time or temporary, so they take a huge cut
and have no health insurance. Temporary workers earn about 40 percent
less a week than the rest of the workforce.
Of the 8 million unemployed workers, nearly 22 percent are long-term
unemployed; they have been out of a job for more than 6 months. This
long-term unemployment rate has been over the 20-percent mark each
month since October 2002, 2 consecutive years, which is the longest
streak since this data has ever been collected.
Despite these record highs in long-term unemployment, President Bush
allowed the unemployment insurance program to expire last December.
These workers have worked hard, played by the rules, and paid into the
unemployment trust fund, which now has $20 billion in it. But the
President had said no to extending unemployment benefits for these
workers.
Do we understand that, Madam President? You don't get unemployment
compensation; you are not eligible unless you have worked and
contributed to the fund. The reason the fund was set up was for just
this kind of condition, where workers have been working, want to work,
and need to work, but the economy slows down, so they receive
unemployme
