Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I have the floor. I would be glad to yield to the Senator from New Mexico for purposes of a discussion.

I thank the distinguished Chair, and I thank the Senator from New Mexico and respect always his opinion and his passion.

Since the Senator from Iowa is in the Chamber, I would like to perhaps do something that may be pleasant for him, and that is I will yield to him for 5 minutes without losing my right to the floor, if he would like to describe his plans to the body. No?

I said I would be glad to propound a unanimous consent to yield to the Senator for 5 minutes without losing my right to the floor, if the Senator would like to describe what he intends to do.

I said I would be happy to propound a unanimous consent to yield to you without losing my right to the floor, if you would like to describe what you intend to do.

I ask unanimous consent to yield to the Senator from Iowa for 5 minutes and then regain my right to the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

I would like to do the same thing with the Senator from Arkansas in just a minute. I would like to make a point to my friend from Iowa and others. I don't think there is anyone else in this body who has been viewed in as many ways as one who is--maybe the word is obstructionist and disagreeable from time to time on issues with which I do not agree, but let me say I have never filibustered, nor have I ever tried to prevent the passage of legislation as long as I have been able to have my amendment, make my point, and get a vote and move forward.

I say to my friend from Iowa, I think for the good of the body here, on Friday afternoon, I would be glad to vote on any amendment he would propose. I would be glad to debate and vote, because I just do not think it is good for the institution for us to stay here until Tuesday, basically doing nothing. I am not sure we satisfy our constituents by doing so.

Now, if it is agreeable--I ask unanimous consent to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas, without losing my right to the floor-- excuse me, Louisiana. My deep apologies. I do know the difference between Louisiana and Arkansas.

I would like to say again to my colleagues, as one who has a reputation for disagreeing from time to time, I think we should let the body move forward and decide on these amendments. I believe we could work out agreements that would allow for amendments to be voted up or down on these very compelling issues.

I share the concern and view of the Senator from Louisiana. I think that issue needs to be discussed and debated. I am not sure just holding up the body is the answer.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent for my colleague from Oklahoma to speak for 3 minutes, without losing my right to the floor, and then the Senator from Massachusetts.

I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma without losing my right to the floor.

What is the pending business?

What is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. President, I do not believe the pending amendment was set aside. It required unanimous consent.

Before I yield to the Senator from Kentucky--I mean Massachusetts----

I have the floor, Mr. President.

Has the time of the Senator from Oklahoma expired?

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.

Once, shame on you; twice, shame on me. The Senator from Massachusetts was recognized.

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.

I would be glad to.

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.

I would be glad to yield for a question by the Senator from New Hampshire.

I am learning.

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.

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.

I would be glad to.

I am happy to yield for a question by the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I appreciate the work of the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from

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

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.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside, and I call up an amendment which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I don't expect that this amendment should require a lot of debate. It is an issue that we have all talked about a lot. It is all a question of turf and jurisdiction. It is something that would never be seriously considered by this body under any other circumstances except that we are talking about the war on terrorism and the overwhelming issue of how we are going to defend this Nation. I will be more than happy to agree to a time agreement with the appropriators who will lead the fight against this amendment which would be agreeable to them.

This Chamber can be very proud of its bipartisan work that resulted in the overwhelming passage of S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act of

2004. That bill addressed 38 of the 9/11 Commission's 41 recommendations to further secure our homeland. Not only the two managers of that bill--Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman--deserve our gratitude but the two leaders, as well, worked together to ensure the Senate acted on this important reform legislation prior to adjourning before the elections.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Lieberman, Lott, Snowe, Roberts, and Bayh be added as cosponsors.

Mr. President, one of the Commission's two options which the Commission recommended for how best Congress can improve congressional structure over intelligence--the underlying resolution does not propose either of the Commission's two options creating either a joint committee modeled after the Joint Atomic Energy Committee or House and Senate committees with combined authorizing and appropriating powers.

Let me tell you what this is all about. The Commission report was clear that along with the need to reform the executive branch, congressional reform is needed. And I quote from the report:

The other reforms we have suggested for a national

counterterrorism center and national intelligence director

will not work if congressional oversight does not change too.

I want to repeat that:

The other reforms . . . will not work if congressional

oversight does not change too.

Unity of effort in executive management can be lost if it

is fractured by divided congressional oversight.

We can't leave this week with our job incomplete. We have to address the Commission's recommendations regarding the urgent need to reform congressional oversight, intelligence and homeland security. To do this in a meaningful way to carry out the important institutional reforms recommended by the Commission, each of us in Congress must sacrifice our own self-interest. We do not serve the American public well with shortsighted, parochial turf battles.

The Commission acknowledges that this won't be an easy task.

The report states:

Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional

oversight may be among the most difficult and important. So

long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules

and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get

the security they want and need. The United States needs a

strong, stable and capable congressional committee structure

to give America's national intelligence agencies oversight,

support and leadership.

The Commission also stated:

Tinkering with the existing structure is not sufficient.

It calls the congressional oversight ``dysfunctional.''

Their recommendations clearly state that we must have a committee with both authorizing and appropriating authority.

It is not any simpler nor more complicated than that.

I have a letter from the 9/11 Commission which states:

If Senator McCain offers an amendment in support of

Commission recommendations on Congressional oversight, we

will support it.

We urge the Senate to adopt provisions for the strongest

possible reform of Congressional oversight.

I ask unanimous consent that three letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Bob Kerrey writes:

I write to reaffirm my strong support for Congressional

action to implement the recommendations of the 9/11

Commission Report to strengthen Congressional oversight of

intelligence and homeland security.

Bob Kerrey, by the way, served here for two terms, as I recall, for 12 years.

He further states in his letter:

This is best implemented by establishing a single committee

in each House of Congress combining authorizing and

appropriating authorities. Therefore, I endorse your

amendment in the current bill which will ensure the single

authority.

Thank you for your work to ensure the recommendations of

the 9/11 Commission are implemented.

Sincerely, Bob Kerrey.

I would like to point out just as way of background how we got to the proposal we have on the table.

My understanding is both leaders appointed both whips--the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Kentucky--as part of two 11-person committees to come up with recommendations.

We met a couple times, the 11 Republicans, and discussed various issues, then there was another meeting of both, and then we were told that Senator Reid and Senator McConnell would come up with some recommendations. That is not exactly what I had in mind when I was asked to serve as part of an 11-Senator committee. Here came these recommendations.

I don't want to digress but, for example, the Transportation Security Administration is left in the Commerce Committee. I am glad to have more discussions with the Senator from Kentucky about that.

I asked, How could the Transportation Security Administration not be made part of the new Homeland Security Committee? The Transportation Security Administration is the heart and soul of it. His answer was-- maybe he will have a different answer--it was part of the negotiations. What does that mean?

I digress. The fact is, unless we give the authorizing committee the proper appropriating capability, we will continue to have, as the 9/11 Commission said, a dysfunctional oversight of intelligence. It is a good idea to make Intelligence Committee members permanent members and not have them term

limited. I think it is a good idea to have it an A committee, although that may cause significant problems if we do not give the Permanent Committee on Intelligence appropriating authority.

It is sometimes nice to have a real-world example of why we need this. I am not a member of the Intelligence Committee. I have no access to classified information. Frankly, I have never sought any because of the fear that some information I might have I might speak about in a public forum.

There was a very expensive and very controversial intelligence program, and the Intelligence Committee--this is a relatively short time ago--the Intelligence Committee, after many hearings, extensive scrutiny and a thorough scrubbing of this program, determined that the program should be canceled. We are talking about a multibillion-dollar program.

Do you know what happened? The Appropriations Committee funded it.

So if you are the bureaucrat over in Langley or at the National Security Agency or any place else, where do you go? Where do you go when you want your projects done? Do you go to the authorizing committee or do you go to the appropriating committee? The power resides in the purse. The Golden Rule prevails around here. We all know the Golden Rule.

So if we are going to have a truly effective Intelligence Committee oversight that can function with strength and power, we are going to have to give them appropriations authority. I predict after the initial attractiveness of serving on the Intelligence Committee, if they do not have appropriating authority, we will have difficulty getting people to serve on the authorizing committee because, again, the power is not there.

We know why many of the authorizing committees are not nearly as important or as powerful as they used to be. It is because the appropriations process is what drives not only the money but also the policy.

We are going to have an Omnibus appropriations bill sometime. Usually what happens, coincidentally, it is within 24 hours of when we go out of session. It always seems to work out that way. There will be numerous policy changes. There will be numerous moneys and earmarks put in. Last year there were 14,000 earmarks put in the appropriations bills, up from 4,000 in 1994.

We are going to see things that will astonish some Members. For example, I was astonished several years ago when there was a line item in an appropriations bill that called for the leasing of Boeing aircraft. We had never had a hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee. We never looked at the issue. No one even suggested it, that I know of, and I have been on the committee for 18 years. There was a line item that appeared in an appropriations bill that said we would lease Boeing aircraft.

Do you know what happened since then? The GAO and the Office of Management and Budget determined that it was a $5.7 billion additional cost to the taxpayer. We now ended up, with this long trail that began with a line in an appropriations bill, with one of the former employees of the Department of Defense pleading guilty and receiving a 9-month prison term, saying she had rigged the contract to the benefit of Boeing aircraft.

Now, why do I bring up that example? Because I can tell Members right now that if that had been a subject for the Armed Services Committee, we would have had hearings on it. We would have examined the leasing idea and rejected it as the ridiculous, expensive idea that it was.

I can go with many other examples. Cruise ships that cost the taxpayers $200 million in loan guarantees that were half built at Pascagoula, MS. I can tell Members of line items in appropriations bills that say when the broadcasters reach 85 percent of high- definition television in 85 percent of the homes in America, which the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission says will never happen--I could go over a long list of items that are not only money but also policy.

What will happen if we do not give the authorizing Intelligence Committee the appropriations power? Exactly what has happened in the past. Projects that cost a great deal of money that the Intelligence Committee either approves or disapproves of are overridden in the appropriations process. It happens time after time after time.

I usually pride myself in straight talk. I would be surprised if I win on this amendment. One of the Commissioners called me and told me, ``I'm under intense pressure''--those are his words--``not to support your amendment but I will go ahead and do so.''

There are Members of this Senate who are under intense pressure, as well.

If we want to tell the American people with the justified pride that we take in the actions we have achieved in the Senate in the last few days, which is remarkable--at least from my standpoint, one of the prouder moments I have experienced in the number of years I have spent here as we have gone through an incredible process, beginning with hearings before Senator Collins's committee back in August, which culminated in a tremendous achievement and the most significant governmental reform since 1947--then we have done about half to three- quarters of the job. If we do not give the authorizing committee either appropriating power or some kind of power, some kind of authority, then we will see a basically dysfunctional and toothless Intelligence Committee.

The Senator from Nevada came to me and said he was going to move to table. I tell the Senator from Nevada, one, I want everyone to be able to talk, so we will just reintroduce the amendment if it is tabled, unless everyone gets to talk. But I also say to the Senator from Nevada that I would be glad to enter into a time agreement for passage of this legislation. I intend to get an up-or-down vote. I will reintroduce it unless the Senator from Nevada allows an up-or-down vote on the amendment. I think it is that important.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bayh not be added as a cosponsor.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, the Senator from Florida, with all due respect, is not speaking on the amendment. Usually we go back and forth for and against the amendment.

Mr. President, after conversation with the managers, I believe we have other issues to address. I think everybody is familiar with this issue. If it is agreeable to the managers, perhaps we could have an agreement.

How much time does the Senator from Connecticut want?

Five minutes. The Senator from Pennsylvania wants 5 minutes; the Senator from Missouri, 5 minutes; and I be allowed 5 minutes.

Two minutes?

The Senator from Nevada, 5 minutes?

The Senator from Nevada, 10 minutes, and that followed by a rollcall vote?

Yes. Part of that unanimous consent request is that I be the last speaker, for 5 minutes.

For the benefit of Members, Mr. President, would you repeat the terms of the unanimous consent agreement?

Followed by a rollcall vote?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada, and especially I thank Senator Roberts who brings great expertise to this issue, given his position as chairman of the Committee on Intelligence.

I mention again the families and the Commission fully support this amendment. I have no doubt when we take this vote, my friends, that the Commission unanimously, and the families of September 11 support this amendment.

I will quote from Jim Thompson, former Governor of Illinois, a member of the Commission, who says:

. . . I urge the Senate to make the Commission's

recommendations for Congressional reform as high a priority

as it made our other recommendations. The congressional

reforms are important and necessary.

That is why the Commission was unanimously strongly recommending a new committee structure combining authorizing and appropriating authority in a simplified and functional Homeland Security committee structure.

Mr. Richard Ben-Veniste:

I urge the Senate to make the Commission's recommendations

for Congressional reform as high a priority as it made our

other recommendations.

The Commission strongly recommended new committee structure combining authorizing and appropriating authority in a simplified and functional Homeland Security committee structure.

There is no doubt how the Commission stands or how the families stand. What this is all about is contained on page 419 of the 9/11 Commission report, the bestselling report:

Of all our recommendations--

``Of all our recommendations''--

strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most

difficult and important. So long as oversight is governed by

current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the

American people will not get the security they want and need.

This is really what this amendment is all about.

. . . the American people will not get the security they want

and need.

So we are not talking about a turf battle here. We are not talking about who is going to do what and who is going to have the power of the purse. We are talking about the security that the American people want and need, according to the 9/11 Commission.

Mr. President, I am a bit of a realist. I think it is going to be very difficult to win this vote. ``Intense pressure'' has been put on Members of the Senate as well as members of the Commission.

I thank the members of the Commission who have stood up to that pressure, but I have no doubt that if this amendment goes down, we will perform two-thirds of our duties, and one-third, which, as the Commission pointed out, is the most difficult and most important, we will have failed that. And that is congressional oversight. That is really what this vote is all about.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and ask for the vote.

Mr. President, I think it may be important that we pause for a minute and figure out what we have done. I would like to have a colloquy with the Senator from Maine. We are now at a position where we are supposed to be consolidating authority in the homeland security committee. In fact, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky said last night:

The most sweeping change we recommend is to consolidate

congressional jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland

Security. If you don't think this is major reform, ask the

roughly 25 Senate committee or subcommittee chairmen who

currently have jurisdiction over Homeland Security agencies

or programs.

Truth in advertising: The homeland security committee has 38 percent of the Department's budget and 8 percent of the Department's employees. That is the great consolidation. Why don't we just stop, why don't we call it a night and say the heck with this farce. This is crazy. This is stupid.

The amendment I am about to propose does, what? Something shocking. It takes the Transportation Security Administration, which is the heart and soul of homeland security, and moves it to, guess what. The homeland security committee from the committee on which I have been proud to serve for 18 years.

Guess where the Coast Guard remains. The Coast Guard remains, guess where. In the Commerce Committee. This is a joke. This is a joke, I say to my dear friends.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Maine.

Sure.

If the Senator will yield for a question, it is my memory, if my memory serves me correctly, after 9/11, the first major step that we took was the creation of what agency? The Transportation Security Administration? Is that true?

So what are we doing with the TSA, may I ask the Senator from Maine? Are we moving it into her committee so she has jurisdiction over it?

Ah, I can hardly believe that. I mean, after all, that is what homeland security is really all about, I thought.

If the Senator will yield for a further question, if Secretary Ridge or Deputy Secretary Hutchinson had to testify before Congress as far as the activities of the TSA, to whom would they testify?

But what about now?

Sure.

Secretary Ridge----

The Senator from Alaska is probably correct that I asserted jurisdiction over transportation at the time that TSA was created. That was before the 9/11 Commission was formed and made their recommendations and their decision was made. At least we told the American people that we would give those responsibilities to that committee.

Now, maybe Ridge only testified before us twice; Hutchinson, many times. There were a multitude of hearings where we called upon TSA, exercising our oversight responsibilities, to provide us with information, briefings, and hearings.

The TSA belongs under homeland security, I say to the Senator from Alaska, whether they go by bicycle,

skateboard, or bus. The fact is that this is a joke when we leave the heart and soul of homeland security in the Commerce Committee, of which I am proud, and I know, according to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, must be consolidated.

I do not know what budget the Senator is looking at, but the facts that the Senator from Maine and I have is that it is 38 percent of the homeland security budget and 8 percent of the Department's employees.

My response is, fine, if the Senator from Alaska feels that it belongs in the Commerce Committee, he is entitled to that opinion. Let us just not tell people we are consolidating. Let us tell them the truth. Let us tell them it is business as usual in the Senate, as the last vote just proved. It is business as usual, and let us not waste the time of our colleagues and try to fool the American people that somehow we are making any significant changes when as it stands 8 percent of the Department's employees fall under the committee on homeland security and 38 percent of the budget.

The Senator usually does.

The Senator from Alaska asked to join in the colloquy and he was welcome to join the colloquy. If he chooses not to stay in the colloquy, then please do not remain in the colloquy.

The Senator is welcome to join in the colloquy. I thought the colloquy was an exchange of views, ideas, and thoughts. I certainly would look forward to engaging in any colloquy with the Senator from Alaska. I have the greatest respect for him and the power and authority that we just saw exercised in the last vote.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

What is the view of the Senator as to the primary role of the U.S. Coast Guard today?

Under this proposal that we are contemplating, where does the Coast Guard remain?

If the Senator will yield for another question, I would like to mention as part of this colloquy a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission: 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 the Department's duties, but we believe that Congress does have the obligation to choose one in the House and one in the Senate.

Now, is it true that under an amendment that has just been adopted by voice vote earlier, more responsibilities have been taken from the Senator's committee?

I ask the Senator from Maine, I am sure she is aware but I think our colleagues should know, that the legislation creating the Transportation Security Administration, under the title ``Functions,'' reads:

The Under Secretary shall be responsible for security in

all modes of transportation including carrying out chapter

449 relating to civil aviation security, related research and

development activities, security responsibilities over other

modes of transportation, be responsible for day-to-day

Federal security screen operations, for passenger air

transportation, interstate transportation. . . .

It goes on and on. It is all security. That is the job of the Transportation Security Administration. That is one of the reasons why it is so named.

So rather than take the Transportation Security Administration and put it under the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs, we leave it in the Commerce Committee.

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

No, I didn't make a request. I said I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I pretty well described this amendment just as we were discussing in this colloquy. Basically, it moves the Transportation Security Administration from the Commerce Committee to the new committee on homeland security and governmental affairs. I pretty well described it. I think it is clear, given the responsibilities of the Transportation Security Administration which I read a few minutes ago. They all have to do with transportation security. Obviously, homeland

security is the appropriate place for it to be.

I ask consideration of the amendment. I yield the floor.

It only applies to TSA.

Mr. President, I don't want to take a lot of time. I wonder if we could get an agreement that perhaps Senator Inouye be recognized for--how much time would he need?

Twenty minutes; followed by Senator Lieberman for 5 minutes; Senator Lott for 5 minutes; whatever time Senator Stevens would need; and then 5 minutes for me to wrap up, followed by a rollcall vote.

I ask unanimous consent for that agreement.

How much time does the Senator from Alaska need? Five minutes as well.

Let me repeat: I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Hawaii be allowed 20 minutes; the Senator from Connecticut 5 minutes; the Senator from Mississippi 5 minutes; the Senator from Alaska 5 minutes; if needed, the Senator from Nevada 5 minutes; and the Senator from Arizona for 5 minutes, followed by a rollcall vote.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, what is the order?

When is the Senator from New Jersey to speak?

Mr. President, may I be recognized before the Senator from Mississippi? I think it is appropriate for the Senator from Alaska to speak, as the main opponent of the amendment, before I speak, which would be after the Senator from New Jersey. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alaska be allowed to speak prior to me speaking, which would then wrap it up, since the Senator from Alaska is the primary opponent of the amendment and I am the sponsor of the amendment.

It puts the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, prior to you rather than after you.

Yes, Senator Lott.

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

Mr. President, I want to quote from the 9/11 Commission report so we can put this into the perspective that I think this amendment deserves:

Of all of the recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important. So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need.

The underlying resolution, as amended, leaves the vast majority of homeland security jurisdiction in committees other than the new homeland security committee. TSA and the Coast Guard stay in Commerce. By the way, the Coast Guard is under the Department of Homeland Security. The revenue functions of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement stay in Finance. The revenue functions of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Citizenship and Immigration Services stay in Judiciary. It goes on and on.

Screeners are responsible for security. The Coast Guard's primary responsibility is our Nation's security. I wish they could return primarily to their old line of work.

So what do we end up with? We end up with a homeland security committee with jurisdiction over less than 38 percent of the Department's budget and fewer than 8 percent of the Department's employees. TSA employs 51,000 people. Those remain under the Commerce Committee. Not only that, but it is clear that what we have done here is essentially nothing. What we ought to do, perhaps, is just say we failed. I am not going to rant and rave anymore about how unfortunate it is that the Appropriations Committee is able to, as they have in the past, fund programs that the Intelligence Committee has thoroughly scrutinized and say should be canceled, at a cost of billions of dollars.

I think we all know what the job of the Transportation Security Administration is. It is security. It is fighting the war on terrorism. Where should it be? It should, obviously, be under our new committee on homeland security and governmental affairs. So I won't bring up an amendment on the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard should be also under this committee because it is under the Department of Homeland Security. It is just logical.

So as I say to my colleagues, if this amendment fails, why don't we just call it a day and say it is business as usual. We have had great success on executive reorganization and I am proud of the work the committee has done. Unfortunately, we have failed to act in any significant manner as far as the reorganization of the Senate is concerned, and that was recognized by the 9/11 Commission.

I yield the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. President, what is the regular order?

I don't object, Mr. President. I wish the Senator from Kentucky had asked for time during the normal unanimous consent agreement. I don't object.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has passed S. 2195, the Anabolic Steroid Control Act, and I commend my colleagues Senators Hatch and Biden for their commitment to this important legislation.

While S. 2195 is a positive first step toward protecting the public health, our work is not complete. We must continue to explore ways to improve the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act, DSHEA, which has provided safe harbor for substances like those made illegal by S. 2195. We must make it more difficult for dietary supplement manufacturers to place harmful substances into the stream of commerce, and require that such manufacturers report to the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, adverse health events suffered by consumers when using their products. We must also demand that best practices for the manufacture of dietary supplements be developed by the FDA and followed by the supplement industry to ensure the efficacy and safety of these products.

Mr. President, later this afternoon the Senate is expected to adopt an amendment by the majority leader that establishes a national counterproliferation center. Establishing such a center now is premature and prejudges the ongoing work of the WMD Commission on which I have the honor of serving.

I am one who said we have to get this done, and have done everything under my power to be of some small assistance to the managers of the bill to complete our work on the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. So I find myself in kind of an interesting position saying that we ought to slow down on this one, but I am saying it because this issue was not addressed by the 9/11 Commission.

The President asked the WMD Commission to examine whether the U.S. Government should establish a national counterproliferation center and to offer our recommendation. If I may quote from the President's remarks on the day that he announced the establishment of the WMD Commission:

Given the growing threat of weapons and missile

proliferation in our world, it may also be necessary to

create a similar center in our government to bring together

our intelligence analysis planning and operations to track

and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. I

asked the committee commission headed by Judge Laurence

Silberman and Senator Chuck Robb to determine the merits of

creating such a center.

In other words, the WMD Commission has been chartered to determine the creation of such a center. I have to tell my colleagues, as a member of that Commission, we have not yet reached a point where we could either recommend or not recommend. The Commission and its staff have held a number of discussions on the desirability of establishing a counterproliferation center, and we will soon examine the structure and responsibilities that such a center might entail, if it should be established at all. In response to the President's specific request, we will issue a formal recommendation in our final report in March.

This amendment could seriously undermine the work of the WMD Commission. The amendment would establish a national counterproliferation center before the Commission has even had a chance to fully study the issue. Rather than waiting for an in-depth review of the pros and cons of moving ahead with such a center--a review that will be fully completed in March--this amendment goes ahead and does it anyway. The proponents of this amendment, and I understand that, have argued that the center would not be established for a year after enactment of the underlying bill and the structures and responsibilities could be changed later. But if we are planning to delay establishing the center for a year and if we are open to changes which would presumably require changes in law, then why are we passing this amendment? Why interrupt the work of the WMD Commission when we could have the benefit of their assessment in a few months?

If the WMD Commission concludes no center is needed, or something different is more appropriate, then it would be very hard to find an opportunity to take this recommendation into account, short of passing legislation that will rescind this amendment if it is enacted.

I don't believe we should interfere with the WMD Commission's work. What we should do is allow all of the facts to be considered and debated, and then we can take the appropriate actions at that time.

Let's make no mistake, establishing this center would be a very significant action by the Congress. It cuts to the heart of the security issues that we all agree are critical to our Nation. We need to make sure that if we are going to do this, we do it right. We should await the WMD Commission's report, hear a variety of opinions, and structure the center, if it is needed, in a way that makes the most sense of the task at hand. We should not take the shortcuts on an issue of such importance, but I am afraid we are on the verge of doing just that.

We owe it to the American people to fully assess the implications of building a national counterproliferation center. This will be far reaching. I don't believe any Members have had a chance to examine this in any detail. The amendment puts the cart before the horse and I strongly oppose it.

I repeat again, the 9/11 Commission did not address the issue of counterproliferation. They addressed a broad variety of issues but counterproliferation was not one of them. And weapons of mass destruction, in the sense of the charter of the WMD Commission, was not part of their deliberations.

I have strongly supported the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I am proud of the work Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman have done in addressing every single one of the 9/11 Commission recommendations with the exception of two that have to do with the congressional reorganization.

Having said that, this amendment is out of the purview of the September 11 Commission and, frankly, out of the purview of this pending legislation.

The majority leader has assured me there will be language, certain caveats about how it could be changed, et cetera, and I appreciate that. We have had a significant dialog on the issue. But the difference I have with the amendment and the majority leader is basically that we have said we are going to establish this national counterproliferation center, period.

This is not an issue of national emergency. I think it does a disservice to the WMD Commission on which I serve, which would report out in March their recommendations and conclusions, and we would be acting, then, on far firmer ground.

Maybe we can talk about it more after this bill is passed. I know the White House has severe reservations about this amendment. Maybe we could continue a dialog on it and at least make this amendment significantly more palatable so that the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission recommendations that come out in March can be fully and completely considered.

I thank the majority leader for his commitment to maintaining a dialog on this issue. I may not be able to speak again in the Senate, but I again express my profound and deep appreciation to Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman who have displayed adequately for all Americans as well as Members of this body that if there is a cause great enough and people good enough that we will act in a bipartisan fashion for the good of this Nation.

I have been in this body for only 18 years, but this is one of my prouder moments because of the way this entire body has acted in the national interest.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to speak in relation to the H.R. 2608, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act,

which passed with a substitute amendment by unanimous consent.

Earthquakes are some of the world's most dangerous natural hazards. They can seem to strike with sudden unpredictability, and can affect a large area causing damage miles away from the epicenter. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, NEHRP, was created in 1977 to conduct basic research about earthquakes and develop strategies, such as stricter building codes, to mitigate the effects of them. The NEHRP program is composed of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, in the Department of Homeland Security's Emergency Preparedness and Response, EP&R, Directorate; the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST; the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS; and the National Science Foundation, NSF.

The 6.0 magnitude earthquake that struck Parkfield, California last week demonstrated both the dangers of earthquakes and the success of the NEHRP program. Because of the strong building codes and preparations developed by NEHRP and taken by the people of Parkfield, there were no fatalities.

This bill would authorize the NEHRP program from Fiscal Year, FY, 2005 through FY 2009. In addition, it would make a number of reforms to the program, including designating NIST as the program's lead agency and establishing an Interagency Coordinating Committee and an Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction to improve the program's coordination and implementation.

This bill also would require the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish a National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program consisting of representatives from NIST, NSF, FEMA, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. The purpose of this program would be to improve our understanding of windstorms and how they affect our communities. We recently witnessed the devastation to Florida by Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne. Congress should recognize the importance of windstorm research to develop ways to reduce future damage from hurricanes, tornadoes, and other such phenomena.

Finally, the bill would authorize funding for the Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Commercial Space Transportation from FY 2005 through FY 2009. SpaceShipOne demonstrated yesterday that we are at the beginning of a new age in space travel, in which private citizens will be able to finance, operate, and travel in their own vehicles. It is vital that this office be adequately funded to ensure that the government plays an appropriate oversight role in this promising field.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their support of this legislation, and ask unanimous consent that my statement be printed in the Record.

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

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

Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate will approve a Senate resolution, which I introduced with my colleagues Senators Hatch and Kennedy, calling on the President to exercise his constitutional authority to pardon posthumously the world's first African-American heavyweight champion, John Arthur ``Jack'' Johnson, for his racially motivated 1913 conviction.

For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with the plight of Jack Johnson, he is considered by many to be the most dominant athlete in boxing history. Born in the Jim Crow-era South in 1878 to parents who were former slaves, he realized his talent for the sweet science early in life. In order to make a living, Johnson traveled across the country fighting anyone willing to face him. But he was denied repeatedly on purely racial grounds a chance to fight for the world/ heavyweight title. For too long, African American fighters were not seen as legitimate contenders for the championship. Fortunately, after years of perseverance, Johnson was finally granted an opportunity in 1908 to fight the then-reigning title holder, Tommy Burns. Johnson handily defeated Burns to become the first African-American heavyweight champion.

Jack Johnson's success in the ring, and sometimes indulgent lifestyle outside of it, fostered resentment among many and raised concerns that Johnson's continued dominance in the ring would somehow disrupt what was then perceived by many as a ``racial order.'' So, a search for a white boxer who could defeat Johnson began--a recruitment effort that was dubbed the search for the ``great white hope.'' That hope arrived in the person of former champion Jim Jeffries who returned from retirement to fight Johnson in 1910. But when Johnson defeated Jeffries, race riots broke out as many sought to avenge the loss.

Following the defeat of the ``great white hope,'' the Federal Government launched an investigation into the legality of Johnson's relationships with white women. The Mann Act, which was enacted in 1910, outlawed the transport of white women across State lines for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for ``any other immoral purpose.'' Using the ``any other immoral purpose'' clause as a pretext, Federal law enforcement officials set out to ``get'' Johnson.

On October 18, 1912, he was arrested for transporting his white girlfriend across State lines in violation of the Act. But the charges were dropped when the woman, whose mother had originally tipped off Federal officials, refused to cooperate with authorities. She later married Johnson.

Yet Federal authorities persisted in their persecution of Johnson, persuading a former white girlfriend of Johnson's to testify that he had transported her across State lines. Her testimony resulted in Johnson's conviction in 1913, when he was sentenced to 1 year and a day in Federal prison. During Johnson's appeal, one prosecutor admitted that ``Mr. Johnson was perhaps persecuted as an individual, but that it was his misfortune to be the foremost example of the evil in permitting the intermarriage of whites and blacks.''

Johnson fled the country to Canada, and then traveled to various European and South American countries, before losing his heavyweight championship title in Cuba in 1915. He returned to the United States in 1920, surrendered to authorities, and served nearly a year in Federal prison. Despite this obvious injustice, Johnson refused to turn his back on the country that betrayed him. During World War II, he traveled the country to promote war bonds. Johnson died in an automobile accident in 1946.

A gross injustice was done to Jack Johnson when a Federal law was misused to send him to prison. The Senate's passage of this resolution and the President's pardon of Jack Johnson would not right this injustice, but it would recognize it, and shed light on the achievements of an athlete who was forced into the shadows of bigotry and prejudice. Taking such actions would allow future generations to grasp fully what Jack Johnson accomplished against great odds and appreciate his contributions to society unencumbered by the taint of his criminal conviction.

Jack Johnson was a flawed individual who was certainly controversial. But he was also a historic American figure, whose life and accomplishments played an instrumental role in our Nation's progress toward true equality under the law. And he deserved much better than a racially motivated conviction,

which denied him of his liberty, and served to diminish his athletic, cultural, and historic significance.

The pardon of Jack Johnson would not be an act that would benefit Mr. Johnson or his heirs. Rather, his pardon would be a nominal but useful corrective of a shameful injustice that would serve as a testament of America's resolve to live up to its noble ideals of justice and equality. Instead of erasing from our memories the injustice that deprived a great athlete of his livelihood and freedom, we have an opportunity to speak as one in condemning the public intolerance and misuse of Federal authority that was perpetrated against this man.

While we know that we cannot possibly right the wrong that was done to Jack Johnson, we can take this small step toward acknowledging his mistreatment and removing the cloud that casts a shadow on his legacy.

I urge adoption of the resolution.

I will mention there is a great American named Ken Burns who may be the foremost maker of documentaries in America. Ken Burns, Mohammad Ali, and many other respected figures throughout America have formed a committee for the pardon of Jack Johnson. I hope we can get it sooner or later.

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

Mr. President, as I believe most of my colleagues know, Senator Lieberman and I made a commitment to the families and the 9/11 Commission that we would ensure that all of their 41 recommendations were considered one way or another in this legislation. Because of the lack of scope of the Governmental Affairs Committee, there were several recommendations which were not considered.

Senator Lieberman and I have already proposed and had adopted several amendments addressing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. There are three remaining issues. One of them is noncontroversial, which I will be proposing at this time and would hope would be voice voted since it is noncontroversial. Then there are two additional amendments concerning two additional recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Both of those are controversial, so I would propose those amendments and then ask that they be set aside after they are placed for consideration. Then they would be disposed of after debate, discussion, or however the managers would like to dispose of those additional two amendments.

I hope I made myself somewhat coherent in that explanation.

The amendment that is at the desk addresses the 9/11 Commission's recommendation to improve the transitions between administrations. It is nearly identical to title IV of the 9/11 Commission Report Implementation Act, which we introduced on September 7, except that it does not include the security clearance-related provisions that were adopted by the Governmental Affairs Committee and are already in the underlying bill, S. 2845.

The Commission report states:

Since a catastrophic attack could occur with little or no

notice, we should minimize as much as possible the disruption

of national security policymaking during the change of

administrations by accelerating the process for national

security appointments. We think the process could be improved

significantly so transitions can work more effectively and

allow new officials to assume their new responsibilities as

quickly as possible.

As recommended by the Commission, this amendment is designed to help ensure an incoming President-elect has his or her national security team in place during a transition between administrations. The amendment would direct the outgoing administration to provide the President-elect, as soon as possible after the general election, a detailed, highly classified summary of current threats to the national security, major military and covert operations, and pending decisions on possible uses of military force.

It also provides that the President-elect should submit to the agency responsible for background checks the names of possible candidates for high-level national security positions as soon as possible after the date of the Presidential election. In turn, it requires that agency to undertake and complete, to the fullest extent possible, the background investigations necessary to provide appropriate security clearances to these individuals by the date of inauguration.

Finally, it urges the Senate to consider the nominations of top national security appointees as soon as possible, preferably within 30 days of the submission of a nominee.

As the chairman of a committee which has responsibility for the confirmation of many Presidential nominees, I assure my colleagues that I consider the Senate's advise and consent responsibilities to be very important. This amendment is not proposing that we shirk our duties in any way but that we act in the most efficient manner possible to thoroughly review the nominees to national security-related positions and allow for their confirmation so they can carry out the very important duties to which they are charged.

I recognize that some, including administration officials, would prefer that we go further. It has been suggested and I believe the House bill even proposes that if the Senate has not voted to confirm a nominee within 30 days after the nominee's name has been submitted, the President alone should have the power to make that appointment. I, for one, cannot support such a proposal, and I doubt that it would have the support of the majority of Members in this body.

Let me also point out that this amendment does not include the Commission's recommendations that the Senate should not require confirmation of such national security executive appointees below executive level 3. One of the reasons our amendment does not address that particular proposal is that upon review of such positions, we learned that it would eliminate the Senate's advise and consent duties for many important security positions that we believe merit the Senate's action. Executive level 4 includes all of the Assistant Secretary positions, many of which one would argue are important national security-related positions. Examples of these positions include the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy, and others.

We believe that instead of removing the Senate's advise and consent obligations, a better approach would be for the Senate to fulfill its obligation in as expeditious a manner as possible. We hope this body will make a greater effort to hold confirmation hearings and report those national security-related nominations to the full Senate for swift consideration. To help spur swift Senate consideration, this amendment includes a sense of the Senate urging the President-elect to submit the nominations for high-level national security positions to the Senate by the date of the inauguration. It also calls for Senate committees to hold nomination hearings and consider these nominations to the fullest extent within 30 days of their submission.

The amendment before the Senate is but one proposal that we need to move

forward. The more critical proposal which we still need to act on is congressional reorganization and oversight over intelligence and homeland security. As the Commission very directly pointed out, not only are Government agency reforms needed, so too are institutional reforms within Congress. The Commission went so far as to call congressional oversight as ``dysfunctional.''

I remain hopeful that the bipartisan working group tasked by the leadership to develop a proposal for congressional restructuring will be successful. We owe it to the American public to fulfill our collective responsibilities. These are not normal times. We are at war.

I just want to say again, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have seen particularly the Defense Department, as well as other national-security-related positions, literally vacant for months and months and months. This is really not an acceptable situation, and it has grown worse and worse. Background security checks have lengthened in their time. The Senate doesn't get moving until a couple of months after we are in session. It is not fair. It is not fair to the nominees, it is not fair to the country, it certainly is not fair to the Departments that are deprived of the services of a new President's team. So I hope we will support this amendment.

I do not believe there is any controversy, so I ask for a voice vote before I move to a second amendment.

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

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

Mr. President, this amendment may be subject to more debate and discussion and may require a recorded vote. I intend to propose this amendment, discuss it, and recognize that there will be further discussion about this amendment.

This amendment addresses the terrorist travel and screening sections of the 9/11 Commission report. Contained in this amendment are the recommendations found on pages 383-390

of the 9/11 Commission report. The text of this amendment is nearly identical to Title VI of S. 2774, which was introduced September 7.

In addition to working with the Commission on this amendment, Senator Lieberman and I have sought the advice and counsel from as broad a range of interested parties as possible. Meetings have been held to address the concerns of many of the interested groups. While some may prefer that we do not address these provisions, that is simply not an option. We must act one way or the other on all of the recommendations in the Commission report.

Despite the hard work by the people at the Department of Homeland Security, it is apparent that our Government has just begun to carry out some of the reforms necessary to prevent terrorists from entering our country. Much remains to be done to target terrorist travel, combine our multiple screening systems and ensure that identification documents used to enter this country or to be used as feeder documents are trustworthy.

Additionally, more must be done to improve the training we provide to our immigration and consular officers. These people represent the first line of defense in the security of our borders. We must ensure that these officers have access to the best training, technology and information available.

According to the Commission Report:

Better technology and training to detect terrorist travel

documents are the most important immediate steps to reduce

America's vulnerability to clandestine entry.

By restricting terrorist access to travel documents, we increase the difficulty to travel into the United States. Our legislation aims to address this pressing issue by requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to work with multiple Government agencies to develop a unified strategy for combining terrorist travel intelligence, operations and law enforcement into a cohesive effort to intercept terrorists, find terrorist facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility domestically and internationally. All agencies responsible for guarding our Nation against terrorist attack must be on the same page in our approach to keeping terrorists out.

In order to efficiently screen those entering the United States, the multiple terrorist screening systems already in place must be integrated. Our legislation would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive screening system that brings together an integrated network of screening points that includes the Nation's border security systems, transportation system, and critical infrastructure and facilities. The Department of Homeland Security will begin to address this issue as they carry out the orders given in HSPD- 11; however, our amendment represents a more comprehensive approach to uniting our various screening systems.

Fundamental to increasing the security of our borders is the quick and full implementation of US VISIT. I, like many of my colleagues, have been troubled by the pace in which this system has been rolled out. This legislation requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop and implement a plan for the accelerated and full implementation of the US VISIT system. Additionally, the amendment directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a single, consolidated program designed to expedite the travel of previously screened travelers across the borders of the United States.

Lastly, this amendment would implement 9/11 Commission's recommendation that the Federal Government set standards for the issuance of birth certificates, driver's licenses, and other sources of identification. It has been well documented that many of the hijackers and their associates used counterfeit social security numbers and other fraudulent documents to obtain legal driver's licenses or State-issued ID cards--or were able to simply but fake ID's--which they then used to open bank accounts, rent cars, board airplanes, and attend flight schools. The ease with which these basic documents of American life can be counterfeited or obtained fraudulently is clearly a gaping hole in homeland security.

Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, at least half the States have passed legislation to tighten up their eligibility requirements and procedures for issuing driver's licenses and State ID cards. These initiatives are commendable and have improved security, but the report of the 9/11 Commission, and numerous reports by Federal agencies and other organizations have all concluded that additional measures must be taken to improve the security of driver's licenses and other forms of identification.

One study deserves special note. Over a 10-month period in 2002 and 2003, the Government Accountability Office--GAO--conducted an undercover investigation of State driver's license practices and procedures, visiting seven States--Arizona, New York, Michigan, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, California and the District of Columbia. In every jurisdiction, GAO investigators were able to obtain a driver's license or State-issued ID using fraudulent documents, including fake birth certificates and fake licenses from other States.

Our amendment would require birth certificates and driver's licenses to meet new minimum Federal standards in order to be accepted by a Federal agency for any official purpose. Minimum standards would be established for proof and verification of identity by the applicant, and to make the documents themselves more resistant to counterfeiting and tampering. The amendment also would require minimum standards for the processing of applications to address a widely recognized and growing problem of fraud within the offices that issue licenses and birth certificates, including the Arizona Department of Transportation's Motor Vehicle Division. The amendment would authorize grants to the States to assist them in meeting the new standards and to help States computerize and match their birth and death records.

To improve the security of social security numbers, the amendment would restrict the number of replacement cards that can be issued to an individual; require verification of records used to obtain an original social security card; and add death, fraud, and work authorization indicators to the social security number verification system. DHS and the Social Security Administration would also be tasked to take other steps to safeguard social security cards from counterfeiting and tampering, and increase enforcement against the fraudulent use of social security cards.

Today, incredibly, the Social Security Administration will issue any individual up to 52 replacement cards a year, a practice GAO has cited as increasing the potential for misuse and fraud. Roughly two-thirds of the 12.4 million social security cards issued by SSA in 2002 were replacement cards. I am also incredulous that the system SSA uses to verify social security numbers does not include notations for death, fraud, or work authorization. Employers often use the system to verify the social security number of new employees. Because there is no notation on the records for death, a social security number for a decreased individual used fraudulently by another person will be verified as valid.

This amendment would not mandate a national ID card. It would not infringe upon the right of the States to determine who can get a driver's license. It would not establish a national database with information on all drivers. And it would prohibit the establishment of a single design for driver's licenses and birth certificates. We believe it fulfills the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission without trampling on States' rights, privacy, or civil liberties.

We must face the fact, however, that rightly or wrongly, the driver's license is the basic form of ID in the United States. We use it to board airplanes, to purchase alcohol and cigarettes, to cash checks, and for a host of other purposes. We cannot ignore that the security of driver's licenses and State-issued ID cards affect homeland security. And we cannot ignore that driver's licenses can and indeed have been used as an enabler for terrorism. There is a legitimate Federal role in establishing minimum standards for these documents.

As the 9/11 Commission noted in its report, ``At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists.'' Making these documents more

secure will help make our country more secure, and help prevent another terrorist attack on our country.

In closing, this amendment was carefully crafted to translate the commission recommendations into legislative language. I applaud the work of the commission and fully believe that the reforms they suggest in this section of their report will go a long way towards increasing the security and safety of all Americans.

The Commission released their report in late July. Their recommendations are taking on a life of their own. The Commission report is the No. 1 nonfiction bestseller on both the New York Times and the Washington Post bestsellers list. The public is taking their recommendations very seriously, and so too should we. The people will hold us accountable for our failure if we don't enact these recommendations.

I would like to point out a couple of additional facts.

Today, each State has a different set of requirements for driver's licenses. Some States allow more than 30 different documents to be used by applicants as proof of identity. How in the world can an employee at the department of motor vehicles be expected to verify the authenticity of the applicant?

I am amazed what some States will accept as proof of identity in supporting documents. For example, one State allows a picture from a high school yearbook to be used as one form of identification. Another State allows the school report card to be used as long as it is less than 1 year old. A third allows a snowmobile permit to be used as a form of identification. Several States allow permits for concealed weapons to be used in getting a driver's license. One State still has licenses without a photograph of the license holder.

I recognize that we are on very interesting ground on this issue. On the one hand, we are trying to balance people's civil liberties. We are trying to make sure everyone has a right to privacy. We are trying to make sure there is no national database which would be used to follow people around the country. At the same time, if someone can fraudulently obtain a driver's license and that driver's license is used in obtaining access to places where acts of terror can be committed, we have to try to see that does not happen.

What we have done with this amendment is try to carefully balance the requirement for some better way of assuring identity and at the same time not infringe on Americans' civil liberties. That is why I believe this amendment probably will be the subject of some debate and discussion and will probably require a recorded vote.

If somebody has a better idea, I would like very much to hear it, but I do not know that there is a better idea. We have done extensive research, have had extensive discussions and an extensive amount of investigation building on the 9/11 Commission's findings and recommendations.

It seems to me that this is a reasonable approach. But to have the status quo in America where people can easily and fraudulently acquire identification which allows them then to be able to commit acts of sabotage, espionage, or terror and risk the lives of others is not a status quo by which I think we can abide.

I thank my colleagues for their consideration. I look forward to the debate.

If the distinguished manager would perhaps illuminate as to how she would like to handle this particular amendment, I would be agreeable to whatever the manager's procedure would be.

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

Mr. President, as I noted on the floor yesterday, the Senate is now engaged in perhaps the most important debate of the 108th Congress. Increasing the security of our country against terrorist attack requires new strategies, new ways of thinking, and new ways of organizing our Government. That is what this legislative debate is all about.

Earlier this month, I joined with Senator Lieberman and others in introducing comprehensive legislation to implement all the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Along with Senator Lieberman, I pledged that the Commission's recommendations--including the ones not already addressed in the underlying bill--would be fully debated. Yesterday, we offered an amendment that was designed to address the Commission's transportation security-related recommendations. Now we will offer an amendment that encompasses the Commission's diplomacy, foreign aid, and military-related recommendations.

I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Bayh, and ask for its immediate consideration.

This amendment is very similar to Title V of S. 2774, the 9/11 Commission Report Implementation Act of 2004, which we introduced earlier this month. In drafting this amendment, we have worked with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to develop consensus language concerning areas of their jurisdiction, and with the Senate Armed Services and Banking Committees to develop language for other provisions.

As the Commission report observed, there were many deficiencies that led to the terrorist attacks of September 11. Not the least was the failure of the United States to adapt its foreign policy to address the changed realities of the post-cold war era. In hindsight, it is evident that we did not do enough to prevent the creation of terrorist sanctuaries, encourage the democratization of the Greater Middle East, and engage countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia in their battles against fundamentalism.

In light of this realization, the Commission found that no single set of strategies is sufficient to prevent future terrorist attacks. The United States must use all of the instruments at our disposal to counter the short-and long-term threats posed by international terrorism. For this reason, it is critical to pay due attention to the role of diplomacy, foreign aid, and the military.

Consistent with the Commission's recommendations, this amendment requires the executive branch to develop a strategy to address and, where possible, eliminate terrorist sanctuaries. It renews the U.S. commitment to Pakistan's future, in light of the critical role that country plays in the war on terror, and authorizes assistance to Afghanistan--aid that many of us believe must be increased. The amendment addresses our relations with Saudi Arabia and suggests establishing an international contact group to develop a multilateral counterterrorism strategy.

Our amendment also calls on the U.S. Government to work with our coalition partners to develop a common approach to the treatment of detainees, and reiterates standards for the humane treatment of enemy detainees--standards that our soldiers and officials should have been following all along. Most of this language was taken directly from the Senate-passed version of the Department of Defense Authorization bill, which is now pending in conference. The Senate has already spoken on this issue once; however, it has yet to be enacted. We must continue pressing to ensure that America treats individuals in its custody humanely, as the Commission rightly advocates. As the 9/11 Commission rightly pointed out, allowing torture of prisoners only makes it more difficult to build the alliances and support we need to defeat terrorism. Portrayals of inhumane treatment of captured terrorists hinder our ability to engage in the wider struggle against them.

Other provisions in this amendment are designed to enhance America's ability to fight the war of ideas by promoting universal values of democracy, tolerance, and openness. It authorizes funding for U.S. broadcasts to Muslim countries, and authorizes an increase in our education and exchange programs. In addition, it establishes an International Youth Opportunity Fund that will provide financial assistance for the improvement of public education in the Middle East. Finally, the amendment notes that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a grave and gathering threat to this country, and requires the executive branch to develop a strategy to expand and strengthen our nonproliferation programs.

This amendment is the next step in fulfilling the mandate of the 9/11 Commission recommendations and ensuring that we orient our diplomacy, foreign aid, and military programs toward combating terrorist threats, in both the short and long terms. The provisions in our amendment are not the only steps that are needed, and there are a number of other important actions that the executive branch should undertake in order to fully implement the Commission's recommendations. But I believe that passing this amendment is a vital and necessary step.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

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

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

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

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

I also understand that at 2:15 there will be votes as previously ordered.

Mr. President, I would like to use the time between now and the time the vote is ordered to briefly talk about the amendment, but before I do I will say I understand there is controversy associated with this amendment. I do not intend, nor do I believe, that we should hold up the progress of this legislation and I would be more than willing to agree to a time agreement immediately upon completion of the pending votes to give the opponents of this amendment time to consider that.

I would also point out to both proponents and opponents of this amendment this issue is very well known. There may be some Members who are not that familiar with this amendment, but it goes all the way back to 1997 when we had hearings before the Commerce Committee on May 15, 1997, where following the Oklahoma bombing there was, in the view of the witnesses, an urgent requirement to get spectrum to the public safety community as quickly as possible. That was 7 years ago. The same arguments are being used today as were used 7 years ago after the Oklahoma tragedy. So I believe this amendment addresses, as Senator Lieberman and I had committed to do to the families and to the members of the 9/11 Commission, the fact that we would act one way or another on all 41 of their recommendations.

This addresses the following recommendation made by the 9/11 Commission:

Recommendation: Congress should support pending legislation

which provides for the expedited and increased assignment of

radio spectrum for public safety purposes. Furthermore, high-

risk urban areas such as New York City and Washington, D.C.,

should establish signal corps units to ensure communications

connectivity between and among civilian authorities, local

first responders, and the National Guard. Federal funding of

such units should be given high priority by Congress.

What we are talking about is not only addressing the expedited aspect of their recommendation but also increased assignment. That is why, in this legislation, all of those who are presently using analog spectrum would be required by a date certain, December 31, 2008, without exception, without loophole, to move off of the analog to digital spectrum.

To take care of those who are still using over-the-air broadcasting, $1 billion would be set aside from the auction of this spectrum in order to provide the provision of set top boxes for those Americans who are still using over-the-air television as their primary way of receiving television signals. This is a small amount compared to the immense value of the spectrum itself.

This amendment is supported by the 9/11 Commission. I have a letter from them and statement in support of it.

It says:

We write in support of your amendment to S. 2845 regarding

public safety spectrum. Your amendment provides for the

expedited and potentially increased assignment of spectrum

for public safety purposes. By creating a funding mechanism

to aid first responders in the purchase of new equipment, it

also recognizes that spectrum alone is insufficient to

address the deficiencies in public safety interoperability.

In this way, your amendment squarely addresses the needs of

public safety cited in the 9/11 Commission report.

We urge your colleagues to support this amendment, because

it takes significant steps to addressing the urgent needs of

police, fire, emergency medical, and other public safety

agencies. By establishing a firm date of December 31, 2007,

for the return of spectrum long promised to public safety,

your amendment provides much-needed certainty with respect to

access to this spectrum. And by establishing a firm date of

December 31, 2008, for completion of the digital television

transition nationwide, your amendment creates an essential

funding mechanism for the purchase of public safety equipment

using proceeds from the auction of the broadcast analog

spectrum. This latter deadline also ensures that the return

of broadcast spectrum for public safety occurs with minimal

risk of litigation, minimal impact on consumers, and with

maximum flexibility of the Congress to allocate additional

spectrum to public safety if it concludes such an allocation

is necessary.

Finally, we urge the Senate to reject efforts to weaken

your amendment by adding loopholes purporting to offer

``flexibility'' to the assignment of spectrum to public

safety entities. The need for this spectrum is too great; the

stakes are too large; and the time is too pressing to succumb

to efforts to delay these critical measures for first

responders everywhere.

I will talk about the successful efforts orchestrated by the National Association of Broadcasters to delay indefinitely the transition from analog to traditional spectrum. Now that my friend from Montana is in the Chamber, I will quote from a speech he made in 1997, 7 years ago, which basically lays out the same concerns he and the National Association of Broadcasters have today.

It is time we acted. It's time we gave these people the spectrum they deserve. We can do that, along with providing those who are now and will only receive over-the-air television a set top box, which will allow them to receive digital television signals.

Mr. President, I think we are close to 2:15.

I understand, as I said before, that there is controversy associated with this. I will be more than happy to agree to a time agreement, a very reasonable time agreement to debate this issue and vote on this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, I would like to discuss my amendment. We are in some discussions right now with other staffs, and hopefully we may have an agreement that would then allow us to agree by voice vote to this amendment. But I want to talk about it because it is a very important issue. It is important to our first responders. It is important to our broadcasters. It is important to public safety.

There is a long history, going back at least to Oklahoma City, that the failure to have the ability to communicate costs the lives of innocent Americans. It really is not any more complicated than that.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter to me from the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-

International, the Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs' Association, and the National Sheriffs' Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will quote from some of the letter. It says:

We are writing to express our strong support for your

proposed amendment to S. 2805 . . . to establish a firm date

to provide additional radio spectrum for our Nation's first

responders.

What is the situation today? The situation today is that there are television stations that are on frequencies, channels 60 through 69, that will remain there forever under the present situation. In other words, in an appropriations bill--not through the Commerce Committee but in an appropriations bill--language was included that said that the broadcasters do not have to achieve a transition from analog to digital until 85 percent of the viewing audience in America had access to HDTV.

In testimony before the committee, Chairman Powell of the Federal Communications Commission said that is never. That is never, he said-- or decades. We have to get this spectrum freed up so we will have it available for all of our first responders so in the case of a disaster or an attack, they will have the ability to communicate with each other.

As the letter points out, in 1997, and that was 7 years ago:

. . . Congress required that certain television broadcast

spectrum be reallocated for public safety use, but limited

access to that spectrum until the uncertain end of the

digital television transition.

The problem is, for 7 years, since we assigned that date, we have not made that transition and, as I stated, if Chairman Powell is correct, we will never make that transition to the point where the analog spectrum would have to be returned.

The letter from these public safety and first responders states:

We urge the Senate to reject amendments to your proposal

that would add uncertainty for public safety spectrum

viability. Without a firm date, State and local governments

will not be able to proceed to plan, fund or construct new

interoperable radio communications systems.

That is the heart of it.

I repeat that the reason I am proposing this amendment is because the 9/11 Commission stated this as one of their urgent recommendations that needed to be acted upon.

I have been made painfully aware over the years of the power and influence of the National Association of Broadcasters. In 1997, they got billions of dollars worth of digital spectrum. They have sat before our committee and promised that by 2003 or 2004 all of it would be returned--all of their analog spectrum would be returned. And, of course, they were able to prevail time after time. I am not going to waste the valuable time of this body describing how they were able to do that. But we are now facing a situation where we have to get this spectrum freed up. We have to do it.

Some will argue it is not enough. We have had testimony before our committee that we need more spectrum for public safety; that we need more for first responders. But right now we don't have enough. Right now. We need to clear this up.

Let me also point out who is sitting on the spectrum channels 60 to 69. Unfortunately, a lot of it is Hispanic television. Some of it is religious broadcasters, and by moving them off that spectrum it obviously would be somewhat discriminatory. The spectrum is being used, as I mentioned, in television broadcasting. This amendment would authorize auctioning off the analog spectrum that is not used and the proceeds from that would be used to purchase set-top boxes for those individuals or families who are still only receiving over-the-air television.

I remind you again why the spectrum is so critical. It is not a new issue. In 1995, the Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration established a Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee to evaluate the needs of Federal, State, and local public safety officials through the year 2010. The committee included distinguished experts from public safety agencies, equipment manufacturers, commercial service providers, and the public at large. This organization filed its report on September 11, 1996, making key recommendations. The first recommendation was stated quite directly: ``More spectrum is required.''

The committee explained, ``In the short term''--talking about 5 years, talking about 1996 when their report was issued--``approximately 25 Megahertz of new Public Safety allocations are needed. The present shortages can be addressed by making part of the spectrum presently used for television broadcast channels 60-69 available as soon as possible.''

That was back in 1996.

Among other recommendations, the PSWAC noted, ``Funding limitations will remain a major obstacle in the adoption of needed improvements in Public Safety communications systems. At a time when government budgets are tight, alternative methods of funding future Public Safety communications systems must be identified. Otherwise the substantial benefits afforded by technology will not be realized.''

The recommendations of this distinguished commission are as true today as they were 7 years ago. And yet we have continued to fail to deliver this spectrum to public safety.

In 1997, I chaired a hearing examining public safety spectrum issues. My committee heard first-hand accounts of the troubles experienced a the Oklahoma City bombing. We heard chilling testimony from Oklahoma City Council Member Mark Schwartz about the day of the bombing. He said, ``We had our trailer command post, the State, the

county, the Feds: We were next door to one another, because we could not communicate in any other way in our crisis.'' He told the story of standing with an FBI agent whose cell phone was not operating. The only way the agent could communicate with Washington was through a friend of Mr. Schwartz in Florida who had two phone lines in his house. The friend used one line to talk to Oklahoma City and the other line to talk to the FBI in Washington. Mr. Schwartz explained, ``You could not use your cell phones, because they were jammed. Southwestern Bell at this time went down. . . . This is why this additional public safety spectrum has to be in place. Because it means saving lives. And I do not care where it is in this country, the public is entitled to it.''

That hearing was 7 years ago. We are no better off today. The 9/11 Commission report made the following observation: ``The inability to communicate was a critical element at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Somerset County, crash sites, where multiple agencies and multiple jurisdictions responded. The occurrence of this problem at three very different sites is strong evidence that compatible and adequate communications among public safety organizations at the local, State, and Federal levels remains an important problem.'' Nothing has changed.

What happened during those 7 years? Congress got the message, at least partially, following the PSWAC report. In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress allocated 24 megahertz to public safety. Big win for public safety, right? Wrong. The 24 megahertz was just an empty promise. Why? Because broadcasters insisted on an exception to this requirement. That exception continues to exist today with no end in sight. Under current law, public safety will not receive access to the spectrum until completion of the digital television transition. I asked FCC Chairman Powell at a hearing earlier this month, ``if neither the FCC nor Congress took any further action, when do you think the digital television transition would be complete? He replied, ``decades.''

We cannot wait decades. We cannot stand by while another Oklahoma City or Pentagon or New York incident occurs hoping for broadcasters to act in the best interests of the public rather than the best interest of themselves. We must act now.

The Wall Street Journal characterized the issue quite well on Monday: ``You would think that these days, Congress would be on a terrorism high alert, paying any price to keep the homeland secure. But there's at least one chink in Washington's antiterror resolve, as was evident in the U.S. Senate last week. It involves the broadcasting lobby and the high-stakes politics associated with the transition to digital TV. Most people have heard about big D.C. lobbies like the ones for tobacco and guns. Compared with the broadcasters, though, they're but a few suburban moms writing letters. Multichannel News, a trade paper, says the broadcast industry is `so potent it's considered immune from the laws of political physics.' ''

The article proceeds to describe the SAVE LIVES Act calling it ``an easy and obvious solution.'' But the article aptly describes the fate of the bill last week in the Senate Commerce Committee: ``But the broadcasting lobby liked virtually nothing about the bill, and senators couldn't muscle up the political will to pass it. The Commerce Committee voted 13-9 against the McCain proposal, approving a vastly watered-down alternative. Only four channels would have to be returned by 2008, and even that handover could be delayed indefinitely if broadcasters could persuade the FCC that doing so would cause ``consumer disruption.'' The National Association of Broadcasters, the main lobby group, says it is only concerned about preserving the ability of millions of Americans to watch free broadcast TV; it also says it is moving as quickly as it can toward digital television. Maybe. It's also possible that Congress, in doing the broadcasters' bidding, has managed a striking bifecta: a ridiculous technology policy that leaves it open to the charge of being soft on terrorists.

I ask my colleagues: If there is another disaster--and I pray every single night that there never is--whether it be a terrorist attack, whether it be a natural disaster, with which we are now becoming unfortunately more and more familiar, will we be able to tell the first responders that we have taken every possible action to give them the ability to communicate with one another to save lives?

I hope I can work out an agreement with my friend from Montana, who has a different philosophical view on this issue, which I respect. I hope I can work out an agreement with him so that we can move forward and close this loophole that has been created, at the same time understanding there are legitimate concerns that broadcasters have in arranging for this transition to take place. But we cannot have it be endless.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Burns amendment be proposed as a second-degree perfecting amendment to the McCain amendment.

I think that clears up the parliamentary situation. So we are now considering the Burns second-degree amendment to the McCain amendment.

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

That clears up the parliamentary situation.

I thank my friend from Montana. I know how involved he has been on this issue. I was referring back to a hearing we had in 1997 on this issue. I do thank him. This compromise is certainly not what he wanted and it is not what I wanted. I also thank Senator Lott for his good offices in helping, as well as the cooperation of the staffs, as well as that of Senator Hollings and his staff.

Again, this is not what I wanted. This is not what Senator Burns wanted. But this is a way to achieve the primary recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, which is to free up spectrum for first responders.

I will not quote again because I do not have it right here, but it is important we get this spectrum to our public safety and first responders so they will be able to communicate in case of a disaster or attack.

The compromise amendment modifies my proposal by eliminating the requirement that all broadcasters vacate the analog spectrum by a date certain. Significantly, this compromise still provides the certainty that public safety was seeking, that they will receive the spectrum they were promised in 1997 by January 1, 2008.

This was not my preference on how to proceed. I never believed in treating broadcasters differently. However, this amendment does so by requiring broadcasters on channels 62 through 69 to vacate their spectrum if there is a bona fide request made by public safety. The NAB is supporting this amendment and has decided to treat its members differently.

This approach has been agreed to by Senators Burns, Hollings, and myself. Again, it was not my preference to proceed in this discriminatory manner, but in the interest of ensuring passage this year, I thought this was a positive step for public safety. However, I remind my colleagues this disparate treatment should be reviewed by the FCC this year.

The FCC can remedy this discriminating treatment by completing its work toward ending the DTV transition. I urge the FCC to do so. I also urge the incoming chairman, Senator Stevens, and Chairman Barton of the Commerce Committee in the House to review this discriminatory treatment and the DTV transition upon Congress's return in January.

Lastly, I remind my colleagues that this approach does not provide public safety the much needed money for equipment or consumers, a subsidy to ensure all over-the-air viewers can continue to view television. It was not my preference to strand public safety or consumers in this manner. I hope in the near term Congress will readdress this need to support public safety equipment funding. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. President, I do not believe there would be any further debate. I think the Senator from Montana would agree to have a voice vote.

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

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

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Lieberman I propose an amendment that includes a number of the national preparedness provisions recommended by the 9/11 Commission and is similar to the related proposal we introduced as part of S. 2774 on September 7. It does not address the issue of homeland security grants or spectrum allocation, as those issues will be addressed separately. I believe that this amendment will be non-controversial, and I hope that my colleagues will support it.

One of the lessons that we learned from the terrorist attacks of September 11 is that not only was our country not prepared to prevent the terrorist attacks, but we were not adequately prepared to immediately respond to the attack. One of the fundamental lessons learned is that we need to do more to prepare our first responders and the general public to respond to a terrorist attack.

The stories of the New York City Police Department not being able to communicate with the New York City Fire Department have led serious efforts to increase the amounts of money devoted to increasing interoperability. Lives of the brave men and women of the fire department and the people working at the World Trade Center were lost during the terrorist attacks due, in part, to a lack of communication and the lack of a coordinated strategy to respond to large scale disasters. We must continue to work to ensure that we equip our first responders with the equipment and training necessary to ensure both their safety and their ability to carry out their critical missions.

The Commission's report emphasizes the importance of teamwork, collaboration, cooperation, and the involvement of key decisionmakers. Their recommendations build upon these themes. The report recommends that emergency response agencies nationwide should adopt the Incident Command System to ensure that there is a command structure in place when responding to an emergency. This amendment expresses the Sense of Congress that the Secretary for Homeland Security require homeland security grant applicants aggressively implement the ICS and unified command systems. The amendment also would follow the Commission's recommendation to remedy the long-standing liability and indemnification impediments to the provision of mutual aid in the National Capital Region.

Consistent with the recommendations, the amendment also would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to work with the Federal Communications Commission, the Secretary of Defense, and State and local government officials to encourage and support the establishment of consistent and effective communications capabilities in the event of an emergency in a high-risk urban area. The Secretary is also directed to work with the Secretary of Defense to plan for supplying additional back-up communications support in the event of an emergency.

As pointed out by the 9/11 Commission, the private sector controls approximately 85 percent of the critical infrastructure in the Nation, and the report therefore places particular emphasis on the importance of private sector preparedness. The Commission report endorses the American National Standards Institute, ANSI, and National Fire Protection Association, NFPA, voluntary Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs. The amendment would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a program to promote private sector preparedness for terrorism and other emergencies, including urging companies to adopt this ANSI/NFPA standard.

In striving to protect our Nation from the threat of terrorism, we must continuously analyze our weaknesses and prepare for the threats of the future. This amendment directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to fulfill this important responsibility by reporting to Congress regularly on his work to complete vulnerability and risk assessments, and the adequacy of the government's plans to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure.

As our Nation continues to stand vigilant against the threats of future terrorist attacks, this amendment takes on additional meaning. Despite all the work done since September 11, it is likely that we will be struck by terrorists again. We must continue to work to ensure that we are ready to respond to any attack. This amendment strives to get us closer to that goal.

Again, I believe that this amendment should be noncontroversial, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, throughout our country's history there have been many debates in the Congress over the use, conservation, and protection of our natural resources. These debates have resulted in landmark policies, such as the Louisiana Purchase, the Homestead Act, and the establishment of the world's first national park, Yellowstone, in 1872.

Natural resource and environmental issues are inherently complex and often controversial, for they involve tradeoffs in which many diverse interests have a stake. There is one interest that cannot speak for itself and relies upon the vision of others; the interest of future generations. Teddy Roosevelt said it best, it seems to me, in his 1916 book, A Book-Lover's Holidays in the Open, where he castigates those ``short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things''. He goes on to say, ``Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method.''

It is in this spirit of our moral obligation to the future--to those who, in Teddy Roosevelt's memorable phrase, are ``within the womb of time''--that I wish to salute the 40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act of 1964. I am pleased to lend my support to this bipartisan resolution honoring the milestone legislation preserving our Nation's rare and spectacular wild places.

Arizona has the good fortune to have numerous preserved wilderness areas, thanks to this law. In fact, more than 4,500,000 acres have been preserved in 90 wilderness areas. These range from the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness of more than 800,000 acres, to the 2,040 acre Baboquivari Peak Wilderness, an extraordinary area designated in 1990. From our desert expanses to the heights of 12,643-foot Humphrey's Peak, the highest point in Arizona, protected within the Kachina Peaks Wilderness, Arizona is not only one of America's fastest-growing states, but also a state in which we preserve and treasure our wilderness heritage.

In 1936, the great forester and wilderness champion, Bob Marshall, spoke of the luxury--a privilege--we Americans have. He commented that Americans can enjoy ``a twofold civilization--the mechanized, comfortable, easy civilization of twentieth-century modernity, and the peaceful timelessness of the wilderness where vast forests germinate and flourish and die and rot and grow again without any relationship to the ambitions and interferences of man.''

In spite of the environmental challenges that face our country and the world today, I am very grateful for the vision of past leaders that enacted this law to ensure that those who inhabit our nation many generations into the future will be able to experience wilderness in their lives, as we do today. As we celebrate the protection of existing and additional wilderness areas under this historic law, we follow our most noble and nonpartisan traditions of national resource conservation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following statement of Stewart Udall, one of our Nation's conservation leaders and the Secretary of the Interior in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, presented at an event on September 19, 2004, commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is designed to address transportation security-related recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The amendment is almost identical to Title VII of S. 2774, the 9/11 Commission Report Implementation Act of 2004, which Senator Lieberman and I introduced earlier this month.

The amendment implements the Commission's recommendations on transportation security in the following three ways: One, establishing a national strategy for transportation security; two, assigning responsibility for the ``no-fly list'' to the Transportation Security Administration; and, three, enhancing passenger and cargo screening.

This amendment is the next step in fulfilling the mandate of the 9/11 Commission recommendations and ensuring we move forward in addressing the vulnerabilities in our transportation systems. These provisions should not be controversial, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. She has been on this issue for at least 3 years that I know of. We passed this bill twice through the Senate. Under the chairmanship of Senator Hutchison, we had extensive hearings on this issue in the Commerce Committee.

I believe this is a very important issue. Senator Hutchison has many important aviation assets in her State, including major airports that are not only for passengers but for ports of entry as well.

I say to Senator Hutchison, thank you, because I think this is a very important bill. I tell my colleagues, it has been passed twice through the Senate. It is unfortunate that we have to go back and revisit it.

Finally, we made a commitment that we would try to address all 41 of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, not always in a positive fashion but at least have them addressed. This is one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

I thank Senator Hutchison, and I urge my colleagues to support this very important amendment. Air cargo, according to many experts, is a subject that certainly needs increased security and increased attention. I think this amendment does that. I thank my colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I begin by commending the leadership from both sides of the aisle for working together to allow critical debate to begin today on legislation to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. In my view, this debate is perhaps one of the most important that will be held during the 108th Congress.

I acknowledge the great leadership of the bill managers, Senators Collins and Lieberman, for their bipartisan work in reporting the pending legislation, reform legislation to the Senate. It is my understanding the bill was reported out by unanimous vote through the Governmental Affairs Committee, which is a significant accomplishment. They have developed sound legislation following the numerous hearings they held during the last 2 months. I commend them for their dedication to this very important legislation. Also, I point out that Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, their staff, and members of the committee gave up a significant part of their August recess in order to hold a sufficient number of hearings in order to be able to frame this legislation.

We have come a long way since 2001 in enhancing this country's ability to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks, but, as the 9/11 Commission said in its final report, we are not yet safe. Increasing our safety against terrorist attack requires new strategies, new ways of thinking, and new ways of organizing our Government. That is what this legislative debate will be all about.

The 9/11 Commission's underlying goal was to determine where we went wrong and what we can learn from identified failures, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities in order to make necessary systematic corrections to better protect our Nation. I firmly believe the Commission accomplished its enormous assignment. It carried out a far-ranging and candid assessment in order to account for the failures of vision, threat assessment, and policy actions that preceded the attacks. I again thank Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton for their commendable leadership of the Commission and the other Commissioners and their staff as well. They performed a tremendous service for our country while leaving politics at the door. Now it is the turn of the Congress to act on the Commission's report.

Earlier this month, I joined with Senator Lieberman and others in introducing comprehensive legislation to implement all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. The bill before the Senate, developed by the Governmental Affairs Committee, S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, addresses the Commission's recommendations regarding intelligence reform, information sharing, and civil liberties. It is Senator Lieberman's and my intent to ensure the Commission's other recommendations--those not already addressed in the underlying bill--are fully debated; therefore, we will be offering amendments we hope will be adopted in order for the Senate to send to conference a comprehensive bill addressing the full range of the Commission's recommendations.

Amendment No. 3702

(Purpose: To add title VII of S. 2774, related to

transportation security)

I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, this amendment is designed to address the transportation security-related recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The amendment is almost identical to title VII of S. 2774, the 9/11 Commission Report Implementation Act of 2004, which Senator Lieberman and I introduced earlier this month.

It is important that during this debate we acknowledge the progress that has already been made since September 11 in improving transportation security, especially for aviation. However, as the Commission points out, significant challenges remain. For example, the computer systems and protocols used to vet passengers before they board a plane are not substantially different than the systems that failed to prevent the terrorists from boarding the planes on September 11.

The Commerce Committee held a hearing on August 16, 2004, to examine these recommendations and heard testimony from the Commission and the Department of Homeland Security. This amendment reflects both the Commission's recommendations and that testimony.

The amendment implements the Commission's recommendations on transportation security in the following three ways: One, establishing a national strategy for transportation security; two, assigning responsibility for the no-fly list to the Transportation Security Administration; and three, enhancing passenger and cargo screening.

I will briefly discuss each of these recommendations.

The Commission found that TSA had no comprehensive strategic plan for the transportation sector or plans for the various transportation modes--air, sea, and ground--and, therefore, called for such a plan to be developed. This amendment would require the Department of Homeland Security to develop a strategy that includes identification and evaluation of homeland transportation assets susceptible to attack; analysis of methods and technologies associated with transportation security methods; the development of risk-based priorities and deadlines; a plan that assigns roles to the Federal Government, State government, local governments, and public utilities while encouraging public sector cooperation and participation; an outline of response and recovery responsibilities; prioritization of research and development objectives; and recommendations for a budget and appropriate levels of funding. The amendment also requires the strategy to be developed and transmitted to Congress no later than April 1, 2005, and subsequent submissions would be required not less frequently than April 1 of each even-numbered year.

We must indeed make sure our skies are safe. But we cannot focus only on the so-called last war. Recent events around the world have shown that other modes of transportation are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. We must ensure that we are aware of threats aimed at any and all modes of transportation as we determine how best to manage our resources to defend our homeland. This comprehensive plan, calling for specific criteria to be considered, will be a strong step in that direction.

Understandably, aviation was the subject of our immediate reaction to 9/11. I think it is clear events such as the Madrid rail bombing and other events throughout the world indicate that we must be equally attentive and equally committed to addressing those threats as well.

The 9/11 Commission also recommended that the process of screening passengers against the no-fly list be performed by TSA and should utilize the larger set of watch lists maintained by the Federal Government. It further suggested that air carriers should be required to supply the information needed to test and implement this new system. Based on the Commission's recommendations, this amendment directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a procedure under which the TSA compares information about passengers aboard all passenger aircraft with a database containing known or suspected terrorists and associates, commonly known as a no-fly list. This procedure is currently performed by individual air carriers, meaning each air carrier has its own separate no-fly process.

By placing the burden squarely on the TSA, we will ensure there is a single database used to check the names of passengers against. I might add that I hope the TSA moves forward with its assessment on how best to develop a prescreening program that will assess the risk of passengers even if they do not appear on the no-fly list.

The Commission also concluded that further improvements are needed in passenger and cargo screening. For example, currently there is no widespread use of technology to screen the actual passengers for explosives at passenger checkpoints, but only for screening passengers' checked luggage and carry-on luggage. Based on the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, this amendment directs the Secretary to take action in improving passenger screening checkpoints to detect explosives. Within 90 days after the implementation of this act, the amendment would call for the Secretary to transmit a report and schedule to the Senate and the House of Representatives on how to achieve the objectives previously mentioned in this section.

This amendment also directs the Secretary to take action to help improve the job performance of airport screening personnel, as well as to conduct a human factors study to better understand problems with performance. The Secretary is further directed to expedite the installation and use of baggage-screening equipment and to ensure that the TSA increases and improves its efforts to screen cargo.

The amendment also would direct the Secretary to initiate a pilot program for air carriers to deploy hardened cargo containers on passenger aircraft that also carry cargo. This requirement is modified from the one we introduced on September 7, which would have required a hardened container on every passenger aircraft. Upon further review, it is apparent there are certain technical and implementation issues that have to be addressed before the use of these containers can be universal. Therefore, I have modified this proposal to require TSA to initiate a pilot program to further explore the feasibility of this technology.

Madam President, this amendment is the next step in fulfilling the mandate of the 9/11 Commission recommendations and ensuring that we move forward in addressing the vulnerabilities in our transportation systems. These provisions should not be controversial, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I would also like to add there will be further amendments that will come before the body, particularly on rail as well as port security. I remind my colleagues that some of those may be very expensive and have a very high price tag associated with them. I hope, while supporting efforts to improve rail and port security, we would also be cognizant of the fact that we cannot do all things to all means of transportation at all times.

However, this is a great opportunity for all of us to improve all of our security, whether it be aviation, port, rail, bus, or other areas of vulnerability, and I urge my colleagues to bring forward those amendments as quickly as possible so we can dispose of them and, perhaps this week, bring forth a product all of us can support.

Madam President, I again express my appreciation to Senators Collins and Lieberman for the incredible amount of work that they, their staffs, and other members of the committee have performed, which has resulted in an incredibly laudable product, supported by every member of the committee. I hope we will proceed in that same spirit as was exhibited in the Governmental Affairs Committee on both sides of the aisle so we can make sure we debate thoroughly and address the further challenges that we face, including addressing in one way or another all 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman, Senator Collins. I would like to have a rollcall vote on this, but that rollcall vote would be held at the discretion of the majority and the Democratic leaders. I ask for the yeas and nays, and I ask unanimous consent for the yeas and nays at a time agreed to by the majority and Democratic leaders.

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

Mr. President, today we will be voting on a conference report to extend several very important middle class tax provisions through 2010.

Throughout the Senate's budget debates this year, I have consistently supported the extension of the marriage penalty relief and the child tax credit, and expansion of the 10 percent income tax bracket. The conference report before us extends these family tax relief provisions through 2010, and I will vote to support its passage. But I cannot cast this vote without also expressing my grave concerns over the very serious financial situation facing our country. We have got to start making some tough choices around here.

The cost of the measure before us today is estimated to be $146 billion and it is not offset. Again, I support extending this tax relief to American families, but we have got to wake up and take a long hard look at how we are going to pay for all of this. As the saying goes, the future is now. We face a $422 billion deficit, yet we continue to approve legislation containing billions and billions of dollars in unrequested and unauthorized pork barrel projects. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, the number of congressional earmarks found in the 13 annual appropriations bills only continue to grow. In 1994, the year the Republicans gained control of Congress, there were 4,126 earmarks. In 2004, there were 14,040! How can we defend that track record to the taxpayer?

It is unfortunate, although not surprising, that this conference report includes a number of special interest tax provisions. We would be doing a far better service to the American taxpayers if we were simply acting on the three family tax provisions I mentioned earlier.

Let me briefly discuss just one of these ad-ons. Nestled within this conference report is a provision to continue one of the most ironic and bizarre U.S. policies to be considered, not to mention enacted. Under the false guise of exploring environmentally-friendly alternative energy sources, this conference report extends a subsidy offered to facilities that burn animal droppings--or as it is coined in this report, ``poultry litter.'' We have all heard of ``litter bugs'' and now we have ``litter chickens.'' I raised similar objections to a related provision when it was included in the FSC/ETC bill debated earlier this year.

I don't want to go into the poultry manure and by-product of droppings, but the fact is that no less green an organization than ``Friends of the Earth'' opposes burning these droppings as an energy source because the process, and I quote, ``cause[s] serious environmental and community health problems.'' Moreover, EPA studies have suggested that these facilities have the potential to cause more air pollution than a coal plant. On top of all this, these facilities drive up prices on natural fertilizers used on American farms, actually detracting from an environmentally-friendly farming process that requires no government subsidy.

Why on earth are we wasting valuable money on such a subsidy, especially when such dire financial and energy needs are facing this country today? We have limited resources to devote to serious renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, and sound biomass renewables. Subsidizing the burning of animal droppings does a disservice to worthy renewable energy programs.

Again, we must not continue to view spending in a vacuum or as piecemeal. The effects of our spending are cumulative, and the day is fast approaching when we will be forced to reap what we have sown. Earlier this year, we passed a so-called jobs bill estimated to cost $180 billion, chock full of billions of dollars in tax breaks for wealthy oil and gas companies and other special interests.

On top of all this, last year we expanded Medicare, an already ailing entitlement program, by adding a costly prescription drug benefit. At the time, I spoke at length about my concerns that such an expansion would be detrimental to the future solvency of our Nation and leave future generations with a reckless and unjust financial burden.

Sure enough, that law's price tag grew from an estimated $400 billion when it was passed by Congress to $534 billion just 3 months later. Not surprisingly, this past Sunday, the Washington Post reported that the program is estimated to cost an additional $42 billion, bringing it to a total of $576 billion. I wonder what the next estimate will bring.

The prescription drug benefit represented the single largest expansion of Medicare since its creation, offering enormous profits and protections for a few of the country's most powerful interest groups: the pharmaceutical companies. That is who made out on this bill, Mr. President, not our seniors who do not understand it and do not get it. But the pharmaceutical companies did just fine.

When will we begin to make wiser and more fiscally responsible policy decisions? What is the result of all this? Everything has consequences. In March, it was reported that Medicare will face insolvency by 2019-- by 2019. Because of the swelling cost of the program associated with the prescription drug benefit, Medicare will become insolvent 7 years sooner than previous estimates. An August 17 editorial in the Washington Post stated that ``in 2004, the combined cost of Medicare and the Federal portion of Medicaid comes to 3.8 percent of GDP; by 2040, it will be 10.1 percent . . . the projected increase in health spending is nearly three times bigger than the projected increase in Social Security costs.'' What

will it take to give Congress the wakeup call it needs? Again, we have to start addressing the serious fiscal realities of our future. We have to make some tough decisions.

Let's not forget we are at war. To date, we spent over $100 billion for our operations in Iraq alone. That cost will escalate. I know--I don't guess--I know we are going to be in Iraq for a long time, and it is going to be very expensive. I will continue to support whatever is necessary to ensure that our brave men and women defending freedom around the world have everything they need to succeed and to come home safely. It appears that our commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan will last well into the future.

While doing these things, we need to be thinking about the future of America and the future generations that are going to be paying the tab for our outrageous, continued spending. It is not fiscally responsible for us to continue to spend and spend and spend without cutting spending elsewhere. We have had ample opportunities to tighten our belts in this town in recent years, and we have taken a pass each and every time.

According to the GAO, the unfunded Federal financial burden, such as public debt, future Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments, totals more than $40 trillion, or $140,000 per man, woman, and child. To put this in perspective, the average mortgage, which is often a family's largest liability, is only $124,000.

In a joint statement, the Committee for Economic Development, the Concord Coalition, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities stated:

Without a change in current (fiscal) policies, the Federal

Government can expect to run a cumulative deficit of $5

trillion over the next 10 years.

These figures are shameful and frightening. We are supposed to be helping out middle-income and low-income people with this tax cut today. Who suffers the most when interest rates go up and inflation goes up? People on fixed income and middle-income Americans.

We are mortgaging our children's and our grandchildren's futures. Did anybody have an idea that maybe we could cut some spending somewhere to maybe make up for a little bit of this generous tax cut? I never saw it proposed.

The Congressional Budget Office has issued warnings about the dangers that lie ahead if we continue to spend in this manner. In a report issued at the beginning of the year, CBO stated that because of rising health care costs and an aging population, ``spending on entitlement programs--especially Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--will claim a sharply increasing share of the Nation's economic output over the coming decades.''

The report went on to say:

Unless taxation reaches levels that are unprecedented in

the United States, current spending policies will probably be

financially unsustainable over the next 50 years. An ever-

growing burden of Federal debt held by the public would have

a corrosive effect on the economy.

Additionally, CBO has projected a 10-year deficit of $4.4 trillion.

Who are we hurting here by this continued spending that is going on? We are hurting our kids and our grandkids. I will probably be OK. We have a very generous retirement plan for Members of Congress, probably the most generous in the world. I would like to know what we are expecting to do for our kids and grandkids every time we add several billions of dollars.

One additional point, Mr. President. We added $2.9 billion for drought conditions to a hurricane disaster bill. I see the Senator from South Dakota on the floor. I supported it. Did we try to offset it with any cut in spending anywhere? Maybe the chicken litter program, maybe the $2 million we are spending this year to study the DNA of bears in Montana? No, we do not do any of that.

Our earmarks have gone up to 14,000 earmarks in the last 10 years, from 4,000. We are doing bad things, and we better stop doing it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I support passage of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005. This important legislation funds the international development and assistance portion of our national budget. By passing this bill, we acknowledge the importance of these programs on a global scale. Supporting foreign aid, military assistance, development funds, democracy programs and other programs should be a matter of course--something that America does as part of its responsibilities as the global superpower.

I commend Senator McConnell, Chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, and Senator Leahy, ranking member of the subcommittee, on developing an appropriations measure that is generally free of earmarks. This year's bill provides $1.96 billion to carry out our many foreign operations programs. I note, however, that the bill falls nearly $2 billion short of the administration's budget request. In these difficult times, we cannot afford to shortchange programs or misdirect resources that comprise a critical instrument of America's international influence.

In addition, of the total appropriated in this bill, $64.1 million can be identified as unrequested or unauthorized spending. Let me be clear. Many of the earmarks in this legislation may be worthy projects in and themselves, but they have not gone through the proper legislative process which should be followed if they are to receive U.S. taxpayer funding. In addition, while I may agree with many of the policy positions included in the bill, they should instead be included in authorizing legislation. Policy changes simply do not belong in appropriations legislation, and such inclusions usurp the jurisdiction of the authorizors.

I note with regret that, once again, the Senate has failed to pass an authorization bill prior to considering this legislation. Again, the responsibilities of authorizors and appropriators are expected to be distinct. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has the responsibility for laying out a blueprint for the policies and funding levels of USAID and the Department of State and their programs. But because that committee has not been able to move its bill on the Senate floor, we do not have the benefit of its recommendations, which is unfortunate.

The Senate as a whole must place as much emphasis on passing authorization bills and conducting proper oversight as it does on passing appropriations measures. Until we do so, we will continue to fund authorized programs and marginalize many of our committees.

With this said, I must once again convey my gratitude to the members of the subcommittee. Their attention and commitment to supporting vital programs has provided a sound bill with which to fund our foreign operations for the coming fiscal year.