Congressional Record: July 24, 2003 (Senate)
Page S9857-S9887
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--Continued
(H.R. 2555)
[...]
Amendment No. 1373
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last November Congress enacted the largest
reorganization of the Federal Government in half a century. At that
time, the Senate was under extraordinary pressure to pass a bill
quickly. The President traveled the country giving campaign speeches
accusing the Senate of not caring about homeland security. The Senate
responded by hastily approving the massive reorganization before
Members had a chance to study the contents of the 484 pages that were
dropped into our laps just a few days before the vote.
There were a lot of items in that legislation that would not have
survived scrutiny had the Senate spent more time debating the bill. A
number of Senators objected to certain provisions in the bill and
introduced amendments. But those amendments were never considered
because the Senate voted to shut off debate.
A good many Senators wanted to put the bill behind us even if it
meant settling for a bill that needed more scrutiny. One of the
imperfections that the Senate was willing to accept was the
unprecedented secrecy that was given to the new Department of Homeland
Security.
Although the original version of the bill took a responsible,
moderate approach to ensure public accountability, the final version
that was dumped on the Senate gave the Department carte blanche to
conduct its operations in secret.
I filed amendments to scale back this excessive secrecy, as did
several other Senators. But those amendments were never considered
because, as I have already indicated, debate was shut off by cloture.
Now we read in the papers that full advantage is being taken of the
secrecy in the Department. Their friends and contributors in the
private sector have a seat at the homeland security table. Corporate
leaders and campaign contributors have been awarded coveted seats on
the advisory committees that make policy recommendations to Secretary
Ridge and to others in the Department.
Consequently, not only do these companies have a direct role in
shaping our homeland security policy, but they also have direct access
to Department officials who award the private sector contracts for
implementing those policies.
Last month, for the first time, the Homeland Security Advisory
Council met to provide advice and recommendations to the Homeland
Security Secretary about this Nation's homeland security needs.
It is my understanding Secretary Ridge took the opportunity to remind
the council that the Homeland Security Department was soliciting a wide
array of innovative counterterrorism technologies. ``There are several
million dollars available to the private sector,'' Secretary Ridge
said. That information no doubt would have been more than just passing
interest to the members of the advisory council. With six CEOs and a
member of the board of directors from three top companies, the Homeland
Security Advisory Council represents some of the top business interests
that are in competition for government contracts related to homeland
security.
It is worth noting that, according to the New York Daily News, of the
818 members chosen to sit on the advisory committee, 11 members have
collectively given more than $200,000 in direct contributions to the
Republican Party at a time when questions are already being raised
about the propriety of former aides to Secretary Ridge lobbying a
Homeland Security Department for Government grants. It is troubling
that the Homeland Security Secretary would risk further damage to the
Department's credibility by naming to advisory council representatives
of top companies that are vying for homeland security contracts and
grants.
At a time when questions are being asked or raised about the
preferential treatment given to major corporate campaign contributors
in bidding on Government contracts, it is disconcerting that companies
such as Dow Chemical, Eli Lilly, Conoco-Phillips,
[[Page S9865]]
Black & Decker, Procter and Gamble, and Lockheed Martin are
representatives serving on the advisory council.
This volunteering by these companies of their CEOs and board members
to serve on the advisory council may well be a selfless act of
patriotism, but that does not stop them from profiting from the
contracts and grants awarded by the Department.
Eli Lilly used its connections to use a provision in the Homeland
Security Act to shield vaccine makers from lawsuits relative to the use
of thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative once added to
childhood vaccines.
Dow Chemical received $1.4 million in port security grants from the
Homeland Security Department last spring.
Lockheed Martin won a long-term contract to help modernize the Coast
Guard, a contract that could be worth up to $17 billion. It also
contracted to assist the Transportation Security Administration in
developing CAPPS II, a controversial data tracking system that will
reportedly collect information about nearly every adult American who
buys an airline ticket.
Despite the specter of the conflict of interest, and despite numerous
warnings from Government watchdog groups, the advisory council has been
exempted from public disclosure laws. The American people have no way
of knowing what is being discussed or what advice is being recommended.
There is no way to identify the financial interests of these council
members in any advice or recommendations they may make to Secretary
Ridge.
With a $40 billion homeland security budget and the expectation that
the Federal Government will spend hundreds of billions of dollars in
the coming years on homeland defenses, corporate America is salivating
over the money that is to be made from the grants and contracts being
doled out by the Homeland Security Department.
Also, being at the table when advice is given to the Homeland
Security Secretary can be a very powerful tool. That is all the more
reason the Congress should provide the American public with some kind
of check to ensure that the advice being given to the Secretary is in
the best interests of the Nation's defenses and not just in the best
interests of companies soliciting a Government contract.
I am concerned about the makeup of these advisory committees and how
they are being used. We have no way of knowing what kind of
recommendations these corporate CEOs are making to Secretary Ridge or
what actions this Department is taking in response to those
recommendations. We have no way of knowing whether there are real
conflicts of interest when contracts are awarded to the same people who
recommended the contracts in the first place.
By requiring that the Department of Homeland Security comply with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, my amendment will ensure that Congress
and the American people know how these advisory committees are being
used. This law has served us well for over 30 years for advisory
committees throughout the Federal Government. It includes long-accepted
protections for sensitive information relating to law enforcement and
national security, so there is no danger of disclosing information that
would make our Nation more vulnerable.
My amendment will require that the Department disclose basic facts
about who is participating in these advisory committees and what kinds
of recommendations are being made. The American people have a right to
know that the Department of Homeland Security is acting in their best
interests, not simply in the interests of any administration's friends
in the private sector. This knowledge will strengthen our homeland
security efforts, not weaken them, and will ensure public confidence in
the policies that any administration--not only this one, but any future
administration--chooses to follow.
The safety of the American people is at stake. I believe the
amendment will make the people safer and better informed.
I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment.
Mr. President, I call attention to the fact that the amendment is
proposed by Mr. Byrd, for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Levin.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton's name be added as a
cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Levin, and Mrs. Clinton, proposes an amendment
numbered 1373.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit funds appropriated under this Act from being used
by any advisory committee that has been exempted from the Federal
Advisory Committee Act)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. 616. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to fund the activities of any advisory committee (as
defined in section 3 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act)
that has been exempted from the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (5 U.S.C. App.) pursuant to section 871 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 451).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, section 871 of the Homeland Security Act
allows for an exemption to the Federal Advisory Committee Act so that
meetings of advisory committees at the Department of Homeland Security
could go forward in emergency and other unforeseen situations.
To form an advisory committee, the Federal Advisory Committee Act
requires notice of meetings, publication of meetings in the Federal
Register, timely public release of documents associated with the
advisory committee meetings, and so forth, including making reading
rooms available for members of the public to read the documents that
are being discussed by the advisory committee.
The Department of Homeland Security and its representatives, when
this legislation was being developed, convinced the committee and the
Congress to grant a narrow exemption to the Department to permit it to
do its job in emergencies to protect and respond to threats to protect
the homeland.
For example, it was suggested if we had another attack, such as we
experienced on September 11, and damages were caused to the
telecommunications systems of the east coast, the Department would need
to convene a committee of experts and people who understood things that
needed to be done to put the telecommunications systems back in running
order. And they may not have time to put a notice of an advisory
committee meeting in the Federal Register, or to give publication or
notice of the meeting, or to have what the act requires: timely public
release of documents associated with the meeting to be held.
It was the view of the Congress, at the time the act was written
creating the Department of Homeland Security, that there were emergency
situations that could develop that would require such an exemption.
Also, the Department suggests that it requires the ability to meet
with private sector officials in private from time to time, as
necessity might require.
The Department, as I understand it, has not invoked this exemption up
to this time, so there is no indication that they are abusing the
exemption that has been granted them. They are following the provisions
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, I assume, in every other
respect. We have received no notice. I have no information personally
that any violations of the act have occurred.
The Senate passed the Homeland Security Act just months ago, and the
Department has been operational only since March, I think, of this
year. So to repeal a part of the Homeland Security Act in an
appropriations bill that passed the Senate overwhelmingly, and where
there has been no indication of abuse, seems to be unnecessary.
So I hope the Senate will reject the amendment that is offered by the
Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Secretary can, under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, exempt committees from notice rules in an
emergency
[[Page S9866]]
under existing law, whenever he determines it is necessary for national
security.
It is important that this amendment be adopted. We are not just
talking about this administration. We are not just talking about this
Secretary of the Department. We are saying that there should not be a
blanket exemption available to any Secretary of this Department, when
we keep in mind that from a national security standpoint, the
Department is exempted, the President can exempt it, the Department
head in this case can exempt it.
But there are matters other than national security which are
important and which are discussed by this Department. For the
protection of the American people not only under this administration
but also under other administrations that may come and may go, this
amendment should be adopted. It is in the interest of the American
people that they be protected and that we know that the American people
know who is being asked to make recommendations, what recommendations
are being made and whether those recommendations are in the interest of
the American people.
I hope the amendment will be adopted. I urge my colleagues to vote in
support of it.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment of the Senator from West Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
[...]
Amendment No. 1373
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if under the order it is permitted, we
are ready to proceed to a vote on the Byrd amendment on which we just
debated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 1373. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. Reid I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) is
attending a funeral.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry)
would each vote ``yea''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 303 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Wyden
NAYS--50
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
[[Page S9867]]
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--4
Dayton
Edwards
Kerry
Lieberman
The amendment (No. 1373) was rejected.
Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
