Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, is the FSC bill now before the Senate?

Mr. President, the chairman of the committee is here and wishes to speak on that measure. We have a number of people on this side who have been waiting today to speak. They will not be able to speak until he finishes his statement, unless he decides not to give it immediately.

I am going to give a very brief statement on the measure we just completed, that Senator McConnell and I worked on, a very short statement. Then with the permission of the manager of the bill, the chairman of the committee, I will go into a rollcall, so to speak, following your statement, who will speak on this side and who will speak on your side.

Mr. President, as I said earlier this week on more than one occasion, change is very difficult. Sometimes change is what we have to do. The events of 9/11 were very bad, and as a result of that, reluctantly, energetically, and enthusiastically, the 9/11 Commission was formed and they met for a year. They did wonderful work. But for the 9/11 Commission, we could not have done the reorganization of this body that we completed. As they found, our intelligence oversight was weak. Our homeland security oversight was fractionalized. We can and must do better for this institution and the country. The legislation just passed does that.

We have recommended four additional ways to strengthen the Select Committee on Intelligence, which is no longer a select committee; it is an ``A'' committee. We have also recommended the creation of an Appropriations subcommittee on intelligence. I thought we should have that as the last issue--the appropriations aspect of it. My friend, the Senator from Texas, offered an amendment that says there will be an intelligence subcommittee of Appropriations. But it is up to the Appropriations Committee as to whether they merge Military Construction and Defense or come up with something else. But there will be a freestanding intelligence subcommittee on appropriations which, as Governor Kean says, is in keeping with the spirit of the Commission's recommendations.

We have also consolidated homeland security oversight in the Governmental Affairs Committee. We have taken 10 committees' jurisdiction. From some, we took away five or six items. Significant things were taken from these committees. For example, from Environment and Public Works, my committee, we took FEMA, which is a very important part of what goes on in our country. That is the way it was through the 10 committees from which we took jurisdiction. We have consolidated homeland security oversight in the Governmental Affairs Committee.

We know there are some who think we did too much. We have had committee chairmen and ranking members really complain about what we did. They said: Why are you doing this? You are taking these things we have worked on for 105 years. What right do you have to do that and create this monstrous committee? But we felt it was the right thing to do--to bring together, the best we could, these homeland security functions. We did that.

There were others who thought we didn't go far enough. I say to them, they should have listened to the complaints and the admonitions we received from chairmen and ranking members and members of these committees. There can be no doubt that the new homeland security and governmental affairs committee will be one of the most powerful committees in the history of the Senate.

The committee will exercise its vast jurisdiction effectively under the leadership of Senators Collins and Lieberman. They are disappointed; they wanted everything. But they got most everything. I am sure they will do a good job there. Remember, the Governmental Affairs Committee, before we started, was a pretty powerful committee. Now it is a committee that is a very powerful committee.

We would not have gotten here without the support of Senators Frist and Daschle. I said at a press conference that Senator McConnell and I just had, the next time Senator Daschle calls me and says, I have a little job for you, I am going to get a few more details about what that little job is before accepting it. I think Senator McConnell feels the same way. This has been very hard. I have a few Members on my side, chairmen, who are upset at me. But we did the right thing. We did the right thing.

Anyway, I appreciate the support of the two leaders who formed a working group for this resolution. I express my appreciation to the members of my working group, my task force. They were so supportive and did such a good job in helping us get to where we are. I appreciate the feedback we got from members of our working group, and all Senators were committed to reforming the Senate.

Mr. President, I want to personally thank Senator Mitch McConnell. It has been difficult for him and for me. But I said last night on the floor and I will say it again this afternoon--it is true that I certainly cannot understand totally the Presiding Officer's feelings because he has been in actual mortal combat, and the relationships formed there, I guess, are as close as any relationships could be. I didn't fight in the jungles in Vietnam as did the Presiding Officer. Senator McConnell and I fought in the ``jungles'' of the Senate and, as a result of working as we did in the last almost month on this, we formed a very close friendship--something we didn't have before. I will always remember this time we spent, and I express publicly my admiration for the Senator from Kentucky for sticking with the program. It wasn't easy to do.

I have the greatest respect for his staff, Robert Karem, Kyle Simmons, Mike Solon, Brian Lewis, and John Abegg. They worked very hard. Two people on my staff worked very hard. Rich Verma worked so hard. He is a lawyer and we used his negotiation skills on many occasions. And then Gregg Jaczko, who has a Ph.D. in physics. We needed his scientific background. He understands the legislative process, and he has done an outstanding job. I hope everybody in the Senate feels good about the work he has done because he has been selected by Senator Daschle to be a member of the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC. His nomination is pending in the Senate now. He did an outstanding job working with Robert, Kyle, Mike, Brian, and John.

I have thanked the members of the 9/11 Commission. I thank the families who were impacted by the attacks on our country. We would not be in the position we are today without their efforts. We have made our country safer as a result of what happened in the legislation that was marshaled and passed by Senators Lieberman and Collins, and the work done by Senator McConnell and myself is going to make our country safer. Serious times call for serious action. That is what we have done here. I appreciate very much my colleagues' support.

Following the statement of the Senator from Iowa, on our side of the aisle, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be recognized for 5 minutes, Senator Dorgan for 20 minutes, Senator Dayton for 10 minutes, Senator Jack Reed for 30 minutes, and Senator Landrieu to follow for a time of 90 minutes.

Mr. President, Senator DeWine is the Republican who is the only one who has come forward, other than Senator Grassley. Because of the gentleman he is, he said he would be willing to wait until Senator Reed finishes his statement. I appreciate that very much. Senator DeWine wants to be recognized for up to 1 hour. Again, I ask unanimous consent that that be the case.

Yes. If there are people who come with relatively short statements who are on the majority side, we would fit those in between the statements. We want to make sure Senator DeWine, who is being such a nice person, doesn't get jammed in the process. He, in fact, has agreed to let these others go before him. If a Republican comes over, we can do that.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be given up to 1 hour following Senator DeWine.

Mr. President, we still have a number of speakers. Under the order which we had set up, in which we would go back and forth with the majority and minority, it is now the majority's turn.

It is my understanding Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is on his way here to give a very short statement. I am wondering if that is, in fact, the case.

It is my understanding we are also ready to move to the Defense Authorization conference report.

I thought it was going to be Senator Warner for 5 minutes, Senator Stevens for 5 minutes, and then Senator Landrieu for an hour and half.

The order has already been established. As soon as we finish with Senator Warner and Senator Stevens, Senator Hatch will take the floor.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to Senators Warner and Levin for their expert guidance for moving this huge piece of legislation through the Congress. This will now go to the President of the United States.

One of the provisions in this legislation is so important to me--more important to 40,000 100-percent disabled Americans. Those who are 100- percent disabled will receive the concurrent receipts immediately. We had a 10-year phaseout. That will no longer be the case.

That was not easy, but it is really wonderful because, first of all, those 40,000 are either disabled, unable to work at all and, frankly, the vast majority of them may not live 10 years to receive their benefits. This is so important that these most dedicated members of our armed services, who are 100-percent disabled, will receive these benefits immediately.

I appreciate very much the work of the chairman and ranking member, Senator Levin.

I also want to express my appreciation to Senator Harkin. Senator Harkin basically had a hold on the work we do around here, meaning he was going to slow everything up. Senator Harkin is a veteran himself. He understands that this is not something which needs to be held up.

I want the Record to be spread with the appreciation of the four leaders for Senator Harkin's cooperation in this matter to allow this bill to go to the President right now.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine, be recognized for up to 12 minutes.

Otherwise what?

I will not agree to that.

There was an objection.

There was a request for the Senator from Ohio to be recognized. The Senator from Louisiana asked that it be modified so she would be recognized afterwards. I said I wouldn't agree to that.

Mr. President, if I could ask the majority leader to modify his request to the Chair and include therein that Senators Grassley and Baucus would be recognized from 12:30 to 1 o'clock, and Senator Byrd from 12:10 to 12:30, Senator Landrieu from 11:40 to 12:10, and that the remaining time be allocated to the minority, with Senator Harkin for 5 minutes, Senator Kennedy for 5 minutes, and Senator Dorgan for 5 minutes.

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

Reserving the right to object, his hour will be counted against the time for the cloture; is that right?

I object, then.

I objected.

The hour will be counted?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

As manager of the bill, am I not entitled to be given by the Senator from California 1 hour of time? As manager of the bill, as I understand it, I have the right to be yielded 1 hour of time by any Member.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, the Senator from Texas wishes to speak for 20 minutes as in morning business. The time will count toward the 30 hours. Following that, Senator Durbin, who has already used his hour, or his designee, would be recognized for 20 minutes to speak as in morning business. That time would also count against the 30 hours. That is the request for which I ask unanimous consent.

Absolutely. And that following Senator Durbin, or his designee, we will return to a quorum call.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

As I understand, the Senator from Missouri would be recognized for 15 minutes, and Senator Durbin or his designee would be recognized for 25 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lautenberg be the designated substitute for Senator Durbin.

And further, the consent agreement said that following the statement of Senator Durbin or his designee, we would return to a quorum call.

Mr. President, if my friend would yield, those of us who served in the House know how important a minute is.

In the House, how we got to speak was, we were entitled to 1 minute a day. We were always guaranteed 1 minute a day. But most of the time that was all we got all week long, that 1 minute a day.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 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.

Mr. President, it does not take consent to stop reading. I seek recognition. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

Mr. President, I want the attention----

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

I ask unanimous consent to speak before Senator Kennedy for 1 or 2 minutes.

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.

My time is not up.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

No objection, as long as the time continues to be counted against the 30 hours.

Mr. President, I object.

Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

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?

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.

It is 15, 15, go back to a quorum.

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,

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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify his request that for whatever time he uses, the majority have equal

time, subsequent time, and that the time the Senator from North Dakota uses and the time of the majority following him be charged against the 30 hours.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Lo Nuestro de Latinos Unidos Celebrando Salud, LUCES, or the Latino HIV/AIDS Task Force of Clark County, NV for its efforts to promote National Latino AIDS Awareness Day.

The 2nd Annual National Latino AIDS Awareness Day will mark the last day of Hispanic Heritage Month, an annual celebration in which we recognize the tremendous contributions of our Nation's Latino community. This day will focus attention on an important health challenge facing the Latino community, and on how we can help the community overcome this challenge.

Latinos account for 14 percent of all HIV infection cases and 15 percent of AIDS cases in Clark County. It is critical that we stop the spread of this terrible disease. The dedication of LUCES to educating and advocating on this important issue in Clark County is commendable.

I would like to take a moment to recognize several individuals for their hard work and strong commitment on this issue: Cheryl Ballard, Marcia English, Cherie Filler-Maietta, Robbie Keeley, Ernesto Martinez, Julie McCain, Keanu Medina, Molly Puno, Elias Zamorano, and Louise Zuniga.

Please join me in congratulating the members of LUCES for their work to promote public health, and in wishing them great success in their future endeavors.

On behalf of Senator Daschle, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 15 seconds also be added for the Senator from Massachusetts.

Madam President, as difficult as this was for us to get to the point where we are now, it is not as if the Senator from Kentucky and the task force just made all this stuff up. Because of 9/11, we created a Department of Homeland Security. We now have a Cabinet-level Secretary of Homeland Security--a former Congressman and Governor--Tom Ridge. There is a Department of Homeland Security, I repeat, of Cabinet status, and because of legislation we passed previously, it has certain obligations within the executive branch of Government. So we had a guideline to follow because that is what Secretary Ridge has been doing in that Department of Homeland Security.

One of the guidelines we had was to try to track that with what will be the organizational prerogatives of the Senate. I believe we have done a pretty good job doing that. As the Senator from Kentucky mentioned, if people think they want to improve upon what we have done, what they need to do is offer an amendment and the body will decide whether that is the right way to do it.

Also, the two leaders have said we are going to finish our work before we leave for the recess prior to the election. That means we are not going to wait around here all day for someone who has a lunch or meeting in their office or a committee hearing. If we go for a period of a half hour, 45 minutes here--and that is an arbitrary number I throw out--and nobody shows up, we are going to move to third reading. We are not going to wait around with the recess, prior to the lameduck session, taking place tomorrow, supposedly. We are not going to wait around here all night for people to work out their schedules to come here. This is their schedule, the floor of the Senate. This is the primary obligation Senators have. Everyone should know--staffs listening, some Senators listening--if we are waiting around here with nothing to do in a quorum call, Senator McConnell and I are going to move to third reading, and we are going to wrap up this resolution.

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Madam President, it is my understanding that both Senator Grassley and the ranking member are supportive of the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I don't know if the Senator from Iowa heard today, but there was an announcement that 13,000 civilian Iraqis have been killed.

That is what I heard on public radio this morning.

Civilian Iraqis.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Hampshire be recognized for 15 minutes in morning business after Senator Harkin gets his 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I stepped off the floor briefly. Through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from Georgia, I ask: Is this amendment offered on behalf of the Senator from Georgia and Senator Kennedy?

Yes.

I say through the Chair to the manager of the bill, I think that is totally appropriate. He has something to do in a half hour or so, so it would be good to have his amendment taken care of at this time.

If I could, reserving the right to object, is everyone speaking on the Chambliss-Kennedy amendment?

It has nothing to do with the Judiciary Committee.

Reserving the right to object, this has set the tone in the future. We will not be setting amendments aside. We will dispose of amendments and move to something else. It is too confusing doing it this way.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, everybody should stay where they are. We are going to have a vote in a few minutes, unless something goes awry. In the next 3 or 4 minutes, there will be a vote.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

What is the matter now before the Senate?

Will the Senator reconsider?

Mr. President, if I can make a suggestion, there are negotiations that need to take place on the Bayh amendment that has been offered. I respectfully suggest that there are two important meetings that are going to take place: one we are having and one the Republicans are having. I am wondering if it wouldn't be in the best interest of all--1 o'clock is the filing deadline for amendments--that the Senate stand in recess from 1 p.m. until 2 p.m. today.

I make that request.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

If I could, through the Chair to my friend from Arizona, I have no problem with an up-or-down vote. I would rather he told me he wanted an up-or-down vote. I would say fine. I have no problem.

I also say to my friend, I want to make sure everyone who wants to speak will have the opportunity. I have no problem at all with an up- or-down vote on this.

Mr. President, I object. We can't do that. The Senator from Florida has been here since 2 o'clock. I think we should keep our regular order here.

He is speaking on the amendment.

I would like to be able to speak for a few minutes.

A few minutes. I will do it as quickly as I can.

I may need 10.

The Senator from Arizona should be the last speaker?

Mr. President, there would be no amendments in order prior to the vote up or down as the sponsor of the amendment wants.

Before my friend leaves, we have served together for many years. We do things in that committee that are so important for the State of Nevada. We authorize programs dealing with flood control, which Nevada has tremendous problems with, with the growth taking place. We do things there to help flood control in Las Vegas and the Appropriations Committee will not give us the money we feel we need.

Superfund is a program I believe in, but we authorize things in that committee and the Appropriations Committee lets us down almost every time. We do it with the Corps of Engineers. We do it with the endangered species.

I say, why shouldn't we have the Environment and Public Works Committee do their own appropriating?

Then we would not have to worry about Las Vegas flooding. We would take care of it. I would go each year as quickly as I could to get the first bill passed and get all the money so there is none left for the rest of the committees.

The fact is programs that are within that jurisdiction--FEMA is an example--these are programs that are essential. I get upset at the Appropriations Committee, even though I am a member, for not getting money to the things I support, as someone who has been chairman of that committee on two separate occasions.

I know the good intentions of my friend from Arizona. He and I came to the House together. We came to the Senate together. I never like to get involved in a legislative battle with Senator McCain because of his passion with legislative battles and life in general. The fact is, even though I don't like to get involved, and I rarely do, he is wrong this time. He is wrong.

What would happen if this amendment is passed? There would be more secrecy. There would be too much power consolidated, as the former chairman who served on the committee 10 years, Bob Graham, has said. He has served as chairman and wrote a book on the Intelligence Committee. He said it would be the wrong thing to do. It would reduce the number of people and staff looking at the critical matters.

The appropriations and authorization process has been separate for 170 years. Why? This is not by accident. It is because there has to be some control, ultimately, of money. That is why we do not allow Senator Reid of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Reid and others who serve on authorizing committees to have a free hand in the money.

Now, the authorizers look at matters of policy. That is the way it should be. The appropriators are spending the people's money the way the law states.

The solution we have come up with is a better solution that strengthens the Intelligence Committee and creates a new intelligence appropriations subcommittee.

Governor Kean, the cochair of the 9/11 Commission, said:

I think [an intelligence appropriations subcommittee] would

be very much in my mind within the spirit of our

recommendations.

I know my friend from Arizona wrote a letter saying this is fine, maybe, but what we want is better. I don't want to get in a nitpicking ``he said, they said,'' but I am reading from page 421 of the 9/11 Commission:

We also recommend that the intelligence committee should

have a subcommittee specifically dedicated to oversight,

freed from the consuming responsibility of working on the

budget.

I don't know if it was an oversight, but I wrote a book once and they sent it to an editor, someone who worked at the University of Texas. She was a professional editor. This is my book, a history book, and she came back with all of the contradictions that I had made myself right in my book. I was so stunned how good she was.

Whoever was doing the editing of this report made a mistake, because you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have limited budget authority and have them do the appropriation and the authorizing all at one time.

This is something that is very important. Senator McCain is wrong. It would not be hard, for example, to find someone to serve on the Intelligence Committee. He said we cannot find people to serve on the Intelligence Committee and this will make it worse.

Walk through those doors and through another set of doors and you wind up in Senator Daschle's office. The most sought-after committee by Democrats in the Senate is the Intelligence Committee. There is a long line of people wanting to serve on that committee. Why? Because it deals with the most important aspects of what goes on in this country. It deals with the intelligence aspects of our Federal Government. They deal with what no one else deals with. Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller have done a wonderful job with very few tools to do it with. What we did yesterday and what we are doing here today is creating an Intelligence Committee that has the tools to do work that they have done in a very difficult way. We are giving the Intelligence Committee superpower authority.

I suggest to my friend Senator McCain, it is going to be easy to find people to serve on this committee. It has been easy in the past and it will be easier now because the committee is better than ever.

He describes the lack of oversight in the current intelligence process, but his process is to give only a handful of Senators unprecedented power. We propose more checks and balances. That is what we need--more, not less.

This amendment is an amendment that is offered in good faith. I know my friend from Arizona feels he is doing the right thing, but it is the wrong thing to do. It would be bad; it would consolidate power. This is exactly what we do not need.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I don't know whether I will use any time, but I would like to be included to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the request be modified: that there be no amendments in order prior to final passage on this amendment.

Mr. President, as we were listening to Senator McCain and the unanimous consent request for time, the cloakroom had a call from Senator Lautenberg. I ask unanimous consent that the order now before the Senate be amended to allow Senator Lautenberg 10 minutes. I am hopeful I will not have to use my 5 minutes, so it would not extend things for more than 5 minutes, 10 at the most. I ask Senator Lautenberg be allowed 10 minutes prior to Senator McCain speaking.

Mr. President, under the order, Senator Lautenberg has 10 minutes. He will not need that time so that can be stricken. What is the order of the speaking now?

Mr. President, I don't have a dog in this fight other than the fact that I have worked for a month to the point where we are now. I don't want anyone here to think the new committee on homeland security-governmental affairs does not have a lot of

work to do and a lot of jurisdiction. They are totally responsible for three directorates. The new homeland security-governmental affairs committee will have sole jurisdiction over three of the four primary directorates in the Department of Homeland Security: science and technology directorate, emergency preparedness and response directorate, information analysis and infrastructure protection, and share parts of the directorate of border and transportation security.

For my good friend, the Senator from Maine, to stand and say, We don't have anything to do, basically, is simply not factual.

I would also say we have transferred jurisdiction from 10 standing committees and given jurisdiction to this committee. This is not a numbers game as to how many employees are involved. It is the number of functions they have been asked to take a look at. And if it is any indication that we haven't given them anything, you should understand that every chairman of the 10 committees has been telling us we gave them too much. You can't have it both ways.

I would also say, even though I don't have a dog in this fight, no one should ever suggest that Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens are not equipped to handle what has been left with them in Commerce. Remember, Senator Inouye is a Medal of Honor winner. Senator Stevens is a World War II veteran. That may not make them better Senators, but it certainly doesn't make them worse Senators.

The only reason I am standing, people can vote however they believe they should, but they should not vote based on the fact that we have given this new homeland security subcommittee no jurisdiction. They have lots of work to do, including all the work they did before. It is not as if they don't have anything to do. They have all they had to do before plus all the other things they have been given as a result of this legislation that we hope will pass soon.

He is not going to speak on the amendment.

Mr. President, the two leaders are emphatic that they want to move forward. We have a lot of stuff to do. Tomorrow is the scheduled day for departure. That will be difficult. I wish people would follow the example of the Senator from Arizona, and I say that seriously. He never takes a lot of time. He doesn't waste a lot of time. He sets a tone for how we should move forward. I appreciate his cooperation on these two very important amendments. These are the two most important amendments we will have on this bill now before the body. I appreciate his cooperation.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

Thank you, Mr. President. The two leaders have indicated they want to press forward on this resolution tonight. We still have a number of amendments. They are completing in the House, as we speak, the FSC conference report, the conference dealing with the drought aid and the hurricane assistance, and we have to deal with those in the next few days, so we need to finish this bill tonight if at all possible. The two leaders have instructed their two loyal assistants to move forward on this resolution, and that is what we are going to do. So everyone who has amendments should bring them forward. If there is a time when no one is offering amendments, we will move to third reading on the bill.

The amendment has been modified?

I have spoken to the comanager of this bill. We have no objection. We appreciate very much the time and effort of so many involved to get us to this point.

I urge that the amendment be accepted.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I have tried to be silent tonight. If anyone wants to come and offer an amendment, I will sit down.

People have made statements asking: What is this committee going to have; you have taken everything from them. I am going to read a few of the most important things they have to do. This committee should not be concerned only with the number of employees. They should be concerned with responsibilities.

The first directorate, the Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection: the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. In general: There shall be in the Department a Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.

Responsibilities: The Under Secretary shall assist the Secretary in discharging this responsibility. The Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis is under the control of this committee.

The Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis: There shall be in the Department an Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis who shall be appointed by the President.

The Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis and the Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection shall assist the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection in discharging the responsibilities of the Under Secretary.

The Secretary shall ensure that the responsibilities of the Department regarding information analysis and infrastructure protection are carried out through the Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.

Responsibilities of the Under Secretary: To access, receive, and analyze

law enforcement information, intelligence information, and other information from agencies of the Federal Government, State and local government agencies, including law enforcement agencies, and private sector entities, and 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; C, understand such threats in light of actual and potential vulnerabilities to the homeland.

That sounds to me like it is more than nothing. This is the policy of our country over which they have jurisdiction.

No. 2, to carry out comprehensive assessments of the vulnerabilities of the 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 an assessment of the probability of success of such attacks and the feasibility and potential efficacy of various countermeasures to such attacks.

No. 3, to integrate relevant information, analyses, and vulnerability assessments, whether such information, analyses, or assessments are provided or produced by the Department or others, in order to identify priorities for protective and support measures by the Department, other agencies of the Federal Government, State and local government agencies and authorities, the private sector, and other entities.

No. 4. To ensure, pursuant to section 202, the timely and

efficient access by the Department to all information

necessary to discharge the responsibilities under this

section, including obtaining such information from other

agencies of the Federal Government.

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 and

telecommunications systems (including satellites), electronic

financial and property record storage and transmission

systems, emergency preparedness communications systems, and

the physical and technological assets that support such

systems.

No. 6. To recommend measures necessary to protect the key

resources and critical infrastructure of the United States in

coordination with other agencies of the Federal Government

and in cooperation with State and local government agencies

and authorities, the private sector, and other entities.

No. 7. To administer the Homeland Security Advisory System,

including--

A. exercising primary responsibility for public advisories

related to threats to homeland security; and

B. in coordination with other agencies of the Federal

Government, providing specific warning information, and

advice about appropriate protective measures and counter-

measures, to State and local government agencies and

authorities, the private sector, other entities, and the

public.

No. 8. 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, and other

information relating to homeland security within the Federal

Government and between the Federal Government and State and

local government agencies and authorities.

No. 9. To disseminate, as appropriate, information analyzed

by the Department within the Department, to other agencies of

the Federal Government with responsibilities relating to

homeland security, and to agencies of State and local

governments and private sector entities with such

responsibilities in order to assist in the deterrence,

prevention, preemption of, or response to, terrorist attacks

against the United States.

No. 10. To consult with the Director of Central

Intelligence and other appropriate intelligence, law

enforcement, or other elements of the Federal Government to

establish collection priorities and strategies for

information, including law enforcement-related information,

relating to threats of terrorism against the United States

through such means as the representation of the Department in

discussions regarding requirements and priorities in the

collection of such information.

No. 11. To consult with State and local governments and

private sector entities to ensure appropriate exchanges of

information, including law enforcement-related information,

relating to the threats of terrorism against the United

States.

No. 12. To ensure that--

A. any material received pursuant to this Act is protected

from unauthorized disclosure and handled and used only for

the performance of official duties; and

B. any intelligence information under this Act is shared,

retained, and disseminated consistent with the authority of

the Director of Central Intelligence to protect intelligence

sources and methods under the National Security Act of 1947

(50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and related procedures and, as

appropriate, similar authorities of the Attorney General

concerning sensitive law enforcement information.

No. 13. 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 in the United States, or relating to

other areas of responsibility assigned by the Secretary,

including the entry into cooperative agreements through the

Secretary to obtain such information.

No. 14. To establish and utilize, in conjunction with the

chief information officer of the Department, a secure

communications and information technology infrastructure,

including data-mining and other advanced analytical tools, in

order to access, receive, and analyze data and information in

furtherance of the responsibilities under this section, and

to disseminate information acquired and analyzed by the

Department, as appropriate.

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--

A. are compatible with one another and with relevant

information databases of other agencies of the Federal

Government; and

B. treat information in such databases in a manner that

complies with applicable Federal law on privacy.

No. 16. To coordinate training and other support to the

elements and personnel of the Department, other agencies of

the Federal Government, and State and local governments that

provide information to the Department, or are consumers of

information provided by the Department, in order to

facilitate the identification and sharing of information

revealed in their ordinary duties and the optimal utilization

of information received from the Department.

No. 17. To coordinate with elements of the intelligence

community and with Federal, State, and local law enforcement

agencies, and the private sector, as appropriate.

No. 18. To provide intelligence and information analysis

and support to other elements of the Department.

No. 19. To perform such other duties relating to such

responsibilities as the Secretary may provide.

Mr. President, this is a big-time focus on the administration of this new committee. This is only part of it. For someone to come to the floor and say they have not given us anything, I have read some of the most important aspects of setting the policy of this country as it relates to defeating terrorism. They may not have the right number of employees, but their responsibilities for setting the policy of this country are in that committee. Anyone who thinks not, let them see what we have done. This is only the first directorate. There are others. I have not completed reading what is in this directorate.

Here are the agencies covered: The Department of State, the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

I have only read a few things of the first directorate. If they had nothing else to do during the legislative year than deal with what I have completed reading, it would be a massive undertaking. In addition to that, you see, we have not taken any of the responsibilities away from the Governmental Affairs Committee. They had huge responsibilities before we gave them this. For people to come on this floor and whine and cry about they don't have anything to do, it is not in keeping with what we have done with this committee.

I will go to one other directorate. I have only read a few pages from this directorate. I have read three pages. I have about 15 or 20 more here. I don't feel that I want to spend my time reading that, other than to say they have tremendous responsibilities.

Under the Office of Science and Technology, they have another big job. This is to ``carry out programs that, through the provision of equipment, training, and technical assistance, improve the safety and effectiveness of law enforcement technology and improve access by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.''

That is another huge responsibility they have been given.

In carrying out its mission, the Office shall have the

following duties:

No. 1. To provide recommendations and advice to the

Attorney General.

No. 2. To establish and maintain advisory groups (which

shall be exempt from the provisions of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)) to assess the law enforcement

technology needs of Federal, State, and local law enforcement

agencies.

No. 3. To establish and maintain performance standards in

accordance with the National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 14-113) for, and

test and evaluate law enforcement technologies that may be

used by Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.

No. 4. To establish and maintain a program to certify,

validate, and mark or otherwise recognize law enforcement

technology products that conform to standards established and

maintained by the Office in accordance with the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law

104-113). The program may, at the discretion of the Office,

allow for supplier's declaration of conformity with such

standards.

No. 5. To work with other entities within the Department of

Justice, other Federal agencies, and the executive office of

the President to establish a coordinated Federal approach on

issues related to law enforcement technology.

No. 6. To carry out research, development, testing,

evaluation, and cost-benefit analyses in fields that would

improve the safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of law

enforcement technologies used by Federal, State, and local

law enforcement agencies, including, but not limited to--

A. weapons capable of preventing use by unauthorized

persons, including personalized guns;

B. protective apparel;

C. bullet-resistant and explosion-resistant glass;

D. monitoring systems and alarm systems capable of

providing precise location information;

E. wire and wireless interoperable communication

technologies;

F. tools and techniques that facilitate investigative and

forensic work, including computer forensics;

G. equipment for particular use in counterterrorism,

including devices and technologies to disable terrorist

devices;

H. guides to assist State and local law enforcement

agencies;

I. DNA identification technologies; and

J. tools and techniques that facilitate investigations of

computer crime.

No. 7. To administer a program of research, development,

testing, and demonstration to improve the interoperability of

voice and data public safety communications.

No. 8. To serve on the Technical Support Working Group of

the Department of Defense, and on other relevant interagency

panels as requested.

No. 9. To develop, and disseminate to State and local law

enforcement agencies, technical assistance and training

materials for law enforcement personnel, including

prosecutors.

No. 10. To operate the regional National Law Enforcement

and Corrections Technology Centers and, to the extent

necessary, establish additional centers through a competitive

process.

No. 11. To administer a program of acquisition, research,

development, and dissemination of advanced investigative

analysis and forensic tools to assist State and local law

enforcement agencies in combating cybercrime.

No. 12. To support research fellowships in support of its

mission.

No. 13. To serve as a clearinghouse for information on law

enforcement technologies.

No. 14. To represent the United States and State and local

law enforcement agencies, as requested, in international

activities concerning law enforcement technology.

No. 15. To enter into contracts and cooperative agreements

and provide grants, which may require in-kind or cash matches

from the recipient, as necessary to carry out its mission.

No. 16. To carry out other duties assigned by the Attorney

General to accomplish the mission of the Office.

Mr. President, that is a pretty heavy load. I would say if they think they have more time than this, then they have a lot of time. This is what we believe we have given them, partially. And for anyone to come here and say that these three directorates, plus the fourth--this doesn't give them anything to do, it may not be the number of employees, but there is a large number of employees in the TSA.

They have so much. Committees are there to set policy. That is the whole purpose of it, and I have laid out policy directions that they have on which it would take forever for this body to hold hearings.

It is very unfair to Senator McConnell and me and the task force generally to say we did not give them anything. We gave them so much you need a semitruck and trailer to haul the responsibilities alone. I have read only part of them.

Senator McConnell will be on the floor shortly. If there are no other amendments, we will go to final passage. Everybody should know it is 8:30 at night, and we waited all day. We want to be patient. As I indicated, we are going to do our very best to finish this legislation as soon as we can.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4038 to Amendment No. 3981

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

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Delaware has an amendment to offer. He has indicated

he would be willing to enter into a time agreement which, as far as I am concerned, is fine. He has indicated he would take--

And whoever wishes to speak against him have 15 minutes, and Senator Biden have 5 minutes to close if somebody speaks following that.

Would that be appropriate?

The topic of it is Senator Biden and Senator Lugar wish to add the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee as ex officio members of the Intelligence Committee, having no voting rights or the ability to help establish a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Biden have 15 minutes, that someone opposing his amendment have 15 minutes, and Senator Biden have 5 minutes to close the debate prior to a vote on the amendment, and that no amendments to the amendment be in order prior to a vote on the amendment.

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), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I am sure that everyone in good faith offered the amendment, but the action that was taken by the Senate has to be rescinded. The managers of the bill were not aware of what was going on. Anyone interested in this had no knowledge of what was going on. It is simply not the right thing to do.

I ask unanimous consent that the action taken by the Senate on amendment No. 4040 be rescinded.

Mr. President, earlier today there was a long deliberation and finally adoption of an amendment that had been earlier filed by Senator Bayh. It is my understanding that another amendment superseded that. That amendment is pending. It is No. 3995.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. President, the unanimous consent agreement that was adopted by the Senate a few minutes ago, we want to make sure the Record is clear that when we talk about Collins, Nickles, Hutchison, Frist, Bingaman, and Rockefeller, we are talking about one amendment per member, and I want the Record to reflect that.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield to me for a brief minute?

Mr. President, this second part of the 9/11 Commission recommendations is winding down. I know there has been a lot of hurt feelings today: You took too much from my committee; you are not giving enough to my committee.

People are very protective of what they have around here and what they fear they might lose. I have been chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee on two separate occasions, and transferred from the Environment and Public Works Committee today was a very important aspect of the Public Works Committee, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Administration.

I only indicate that because when the dust settles, we will find that we have created a much more powerful Intelligence Committee, a much more powerful intelligence apparatus, and we will find that the homeland security committee, which we have created, merged with the Governmental Affairs Committee, is going to be one of the most powerful committees in the Congress of the United States.

As I said, there are a lot of hurt feelings. This has been very difficult for Senator McConnell and I. We did not run for this assignment to manage this bill, but this is part of the responsibilities we have, and we have done the very best we can.

I hope tomorrow people will sit back and rather than lamenting what they did not get or what they felt they should get, they will understand what we are doing. This is part of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Always remember this is legislation, it is not perfection. Legislation is the art of compromise, and I believe that includes consensus building, which we have done.

I want to again, through the Chair, extend my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. This has been extremely difficult for him and for me, but this is part of our responsibilities. I want to express my admiration and appreciation for his cooperation in allowing us to move forward on this legislation.

Yes.

Parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding that, under the order that is now before the Senate, we on the minority side have about 3\1/ 2\ minutes remaining; is that correct?

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Delaware be given 5 minutes and the Senator from Alaska be given 10 minutes.

Senator Carper has 3 minutes now. There is no unanimous consent request pending now, is there?

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper.