Intelligence Committee Reorganization

INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REORGANIZATION-CONTINUED

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if we are going to create jurisdiction in one committee for homeland security, let's do it. Let's not pretend that we are doing it. Let's not do it in name only. As a result of the proposal put before the Senate with its exclusions and the amendment adopted this morning, as the Senator from Arizona indicated, the homeland security committee would have exclusive jurisdiction over less than 38 percent of the Department's budget.

It would have exclusive jurisdiction over fewer than 8 percent of the Department's employees. That is 13,000 employees out of 175,000 employees. There are more amendments filed that would take still more agencies away from the committee's jurisdiction.

Mr. McCAIN. 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?

Ms. COLLINS. The Senator is correct.

Mr. McCAIN. 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?

Ms. COLLINS. No.

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

Ms. COLLINS. The fact is that Congress has held 312 hearings over the past 2 years on homeland security. The Department has conducted 2,200 briefings. There are 25 Senate committees and subcommittees with jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security. This is an intolerable situation for the Department. It is why the Department and the President are pleading with us to consolidate all of the Department under one authorizing committee.

Mr. McCAIN. 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?

Ms. COLLINS. They would testify all over. They testified before 88--

Mr. McCAIN. But what about now?

Ms. COLLINS. Well, that is a good question. I have had hearings. Other hearings have been held. Twenty-five Senate committees and subcommittees have a claim over DHS. It is why Secretary Ridge called up in desperation and said: Please give us some relief from this. This is intolerable. We are supposed to be running the Department. Instead, we are constantly testifying.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to clarify the issue. It is not just TSA and the homeland security functions of the Coast Guard that are not transferred to the new homeland security committee. It is the immigration functions of the bureaus of Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Citizenship and Immigration Services stay now in the Judiciary Committee. Certain functions of the bureaus of Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement stay in Finance. So I think if we add in all of the exclusions, then we get to the percentages that I quoted.

I say to my colleagues, my point is this: Are we going to do this or not? If we are not going to consolidate all of the functions of the Department of Homeland Security under one authorizing committee, as they are under one appropriations subcommittee, appropriately so, then let us not pretend that we are.

Mr. McCAIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Ms. COLLINS. I would be happy to yield.

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

Ms. COLLINS. The primary role of the Coast Guard today is port security. It has in some ways taken away from its many other important functions in fisheries enforcement and regulation, for example.

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

Ms. COLLINS. The Coast Guard would remain in the Commerce Committee.

The point is this: The administration has called for this consolidation. Let us either do it or not do it, but let us not pretend we are doing it by changing the name of a committee but only transferring to its exclusive jurisdiction 38 percent of the budget and 8 percent of the people.

If some of the pending amendments are approved, such as one to no longer have the Secret Service transferred, then we are just going to end up with jurisdiction over Tom Ridge's personal staff. That is about what is going to be left.

Mr. McCAIN. 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?

Ms. COLLINS. The Senator is correct. The underlying resolution as amended this morning now leaves the vast majority of the homeland security jurisdiction in committees other than in the new homeland security committee. I think that is a mistake. I think, if we are going to take that route, then we have not done the consolidation that the administration has called for.

Perhaps that is the will of this body. I understand these issues are difficult, that committees think they have a special relationship with these agencies. But let's not pretend we are consolidating agencies to parallel the consolidation that we undertook when we created the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. McCAIN. 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.

Ms. COLLINS. The Senator is correct. That is the effect of the underlying resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the issue before us is really very straightforward. Do we want to reorganize the Senate to consolidate jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security within one committee or don't we? What we should not do is to pretend we are consolidating jurisdiction in one committee, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission, and as strongly endorsed by the administration and Secretary Ridge. If we are going to consolidate authority, then let's do it. If we are going to try to address the problem of 25 different Senate committees and subcommittees having a claim on the new Department, requiring testimony from officials in the Department, if we want to continue on that route, then let us not pretend we are undergoing significant reform.

Moreover, the Secret Service has responsibilities ranging from investigations of Presidential threats to protection at major events that go to the heart of the Department of Homeland Security's mission. The Secret Service is a vital part of the mission of securing the homeland. That is why it was moved into the Department of Homeland Security, and that is why if we are going to mirror the Department, it should be under the jurisdiction of whatever committee is given responsibility for homeland security.

There are functions of the Secret Service that clearly fit with the core mission of the Department of Homeland Security. Indeed, at a hearing shortly before passage of the legislation setting up the new Department of Homeland Security, the Director of the Secret Service testified, explaining why it was important to include the Secret Service in the new Department. He stated:

Our core philosophy mirrors that of the new Department of Homeland Security. Like our agency, the new department will be prepared to respond to incidents and infiltration. Our common goal is to anticipate and prepare through robust threat assessments and analyses of intelligence information that is made available to us.

He also stated:

Beyond our protective responsibilities, the Secret Service is a major contributor to other aspects of our homeland security.

He concluded his testimony by stating:

It is clear the Department of Homeland Security will be built on the pillars of prevention and protection. These are the very words found throughout our strategic plan. They define the mission and the culture of the United States Secret Service.

I know that the Secret Service enforces certain criminal laws, and it has a good relationship with the Judiciary Committee. However, the fact is, it is part of the Department of Homeland Security. If we are going to have a committee responsible for the Department of Homeland Security, we should do that. We should not exclude key agencies. Otherwise, we are defeating the whole purpose of creating new jurisdiction and trying to consolidate oversight and responsibility for the Department of Homeland Security.

I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Maine would yield for a question?

Ms. COLLINS. I have yielded the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask the distinguished Senator from Maine, we have the Secret Service in Homeland Security, but carved out is a separate entity, partly because of their criminal jurisdiction and the fact that their oversight is in the Judiciary Committee. I would ask if by the same logic that because they are there, they must suddenly come under this new committee, do we also bring the Attorney General's office under this new committee for oversight because they prosecute the cases brought by the Secret Service? Do we bring the U.S. attorneys? Maybe the Attorney General and the U.S. attorney should be brought into this new homeland security committee for confirmation, for oversight, or budget and everything else because, after all, they have criminal jurisdiction and the Secret Service goes to them.

Or do we have a bifurcated thing where the Secret Service criminal jurisdiction, which does come under the Department of Justice and the U.S. attorneys for prosecution, suddenly say: Well, we can watch what they are doing in the Judiciary Committee, but maybe we shouldn't be watching because maybe it should be somewhere else where there is none of the 56 years of experience watching over it?

It seems to me what we are doing is trying to set up an organizational chart for the sake of organizational charts. I might say, maybe this is one of the problems with putting this thing together behind closed doors, without the input of the people most directly involved, without any hearings. And suddenly as the airplanes are revving up and the smell of jet fuel is in the air, we are saying: Quick, we have to do it, forget the 56 years, forget what has worked. Forget the fact that it is working. Forget the fact that it works extremely well. Forget all those criminal cases that they handle. We have an idea to fill out some new chart and, therefore, go forward with it. Forget the proud tradition of the Secret Service. Forget all the experience, all the things they have done. Forget the prosecutors they have to go to. But, by golly, we are going to have a nice new chart.

There is more I could say but I shan't. I think maybe we ought to vote and see where we stand.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont raised a rhetorical question, or at least I think it was a rhetorical question. He said, Should we put the Office of the Attorney General under the jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee? Of course, the answer to that is obviously no, because the Office of the Attorney General is not part of the Department of Homeland Security.

The issue before us is really straightforward and simple. Do we want to follow the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and Secretary Ridge and the rest of the administration and have a single authorizing committee in the House and the Senate with responsibility for the Department of Homeland Security, not responsibility for 38 percent of the Department of Homeland Security, not responsibility for 8 percent of the employees of the Department of Homeland Security? No, there isn't a recommendation to have agencies that are not part of the Department added to the jurisdiction.

The idea is to have a single authorizing committee in the House and the Senate to mirror the agencies that are in the Department of Homeland Security, to consolidate jurisdiction between the House and Senate, which is spread over 88 committees and subcommittees; so that the officials of the Department don't have to answer to so many congressional overseers that they are prevented from devoting as much attention as they need to to do their duties. That is what this debate is about.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Could we be informed as to the topic?

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

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator for the explanation.