Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Daschle and Senator Lieberman to the pending legislation concerning homeland security.
I voted earlier against invoking cloture on this legislation because in part I disagreed with many of the amendments which were added at the last moment by the House to this bill. The amendment offered by Senator Daschle and Senator Lieberman would correct many problems in this House bill - although not all. There is much about the underlying bill which still needs to be corrected. I laid out earlier my concerns. Today, however, I want to address the House's legislative "add-ons" that should be stripped from this bill. I think it is clear what the House has done in the midnight hour of this Congress.
The House Leadership has taken a moving train - legislation for a Department of Homeland Security - and attached gilded carriages for their special friends to travel on this legislative express.
What has been added does not enhance the security of the American people. It enriches a select few companies and special individuals – very special people. One provision is clearly meant to earmark a new university-based homeland security research center program for Texas A & M University, avoiding an open and competitive award process. All of us have universities, distinguished centers of higher learning in our states, all of which would welcome the opportunity to make their case for this funding. But under this bill, they will not get that chance. However, if the Daschle amendment passes, other colleges and universities would be permitted to demonstrate their competence to be a center for homeland security research, including Texas A & M.
Another provision in this legislation would limit liability to companies producing homeland security technologies. The main intent of this provision is to eliminate the ability of Americans to obtain compensation should they be harmed by any of these technologies. The provision is open-ended. It does not define how anti-terrorism technologies will be identified. Under the liability provision sections, the Secretary has the discretion to designate which technologies will benefit from this additional protection from liability. This section is not about stimulating the development of new technologies to protect us. It is about finding new ways to protect companies from legal liability. Indeed one section of this bill is labeled "Litigation Management." That says it all there.
Two subparagraphs, almost too small to be noticed, undermine the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or FACA, and the public's right to know the make-up, meeting schedules, and findings of federal commissions, committees, councils, and task forces. These groups are chartered by the President, Congress, and agency heads to give independent advice and recommendations on substantial policy issues and technological problems.
Congress enacted FACA in 1972 to address concerns of committees being redundant, having inadequate oversight, using secretive operations, and not representing public interest. FACA requires that the advice provided by such committees be objective and responsive to public concerns. Committee meetings are required to be open and properly noticed, with specific exceptions. The House bill would give the Secretary of Homeland Security a blanket exemption from FACA requirements once the Secretary notices the creation of a committee and its intent. One wonders why the House Leadership wants to overturn sunshine rules. What do they want to hide?
This is a very serious matter. What sort of oversight will these committees have? Who will serve on them? Will all interests be represented? How will we confirm that the public interests have been met? To allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to set up advisory committees that are free from the balanced regulations of FACA is to retreat back to a time when special interest groups ran roughshod over the public's interest and recommended one-sided views without appropriate oversight.
The original Lieberman substitute, and the original Gramm-Miller amendment, were based upon provisions that were debated and discussed within the Governmental Affairs Committee through hearings and business meetings. The bill before us today has several provisions that have not had that treatment and will directly benefit the airline and rail companies and other special interests.
The Governmental Affairs Committee spent weeks and months studying, debating, and drafting legislation on homeland security. In contrast, this bill was not written in committee and some parts of the bill before us today have had only special interest input. That is not the best way to ensure public safety and national security.
