[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 25, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9186-S9200]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 5005, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5005) to establish the Department of Homeland 
     Security, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Lieberman amendment No. 4471, in the nature of a 
     substitute.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of Rule XII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Lieberman 
     substitute amendment No. 4471 for H.R. 5005, the Homeland 
     Security bill.
         Debbie Stabenow, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Evan Bayh, 
           Mark Dayton, Jeff Sessions, John Edwards, Jim Jeffords, 
           Joseph Lieberman, Bill Nelson of Florida, Blanche L. 
           Lincoln, Byron L. Dorgan, Jack Reed, Patrick Leahy, 
           Robert C. Byrd, Mary Landrieu, Max Baucus.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call under the rule is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
Lieberman amendment No. 4471 to H.R. 5005, an act to establish the 
Department of Homeland Security and for other purposes, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Torricelli) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Torricelli
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). On this vote, the 
yeas are 49, the nays are 49. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen 
and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote 
by which cloture has not been invoked on the Lieberman substitute 
amendment No. 4471 to H.R. 5005, the homeland security legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 4738

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
hours of debate on the Gramm amendment, with the time to be equally 
divided between the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Connecticut 
or their designees.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, for himself, Mr. Miller, 
     Mr. McConnell, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Hagel, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4738.

  Mr. GRAMM. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes of leader 
time this morning, before we get into the debate on the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Texas, to talk about a concern that I have 
wanted to avoid talking about for weeks. I am very saddened by the fact 
that we have debated homeland security now for 4 weeks. I have noted on 
several occasions that there is no reason, on a bipartisan basis, this 
body cannot work

[[Page S9187]]

together to overcome our differences and to pass a meaningful and 
substantive bill dealing with homeland security.
  Some have suggested that the delay has been politically motivated, 
and I have said: I am not willing to believe that. In fact, yesterday I 
said: We intend to give the President the benefit of the doubt.
  Over the course of the last several weeks, as we have debated 
national security, the issue of war in Iraq has become more and more 
prominent. And again, as I go back to my experience in 1991 and 1992, 
during a similar period--the fall and winter prior and after an 
election--I expressed the concern that our politics in this climate 
could easily create a politicized environment and, in so doing, 
diminish, minimize, degrade the debate on an issue as grave as war.
  No one here needs to be reminded of the consequences of war. No one 
here should have to be admonished about politicizing the debate about 
war. But, Mr. President, increasingly, over the course of the last 
several weeks, reports have surfaced which have led me to believe that 
indeed there are those who would politicize this war.
  I was given a report about a recommendation made by Matthew Dowd, the 
pollster for the White House and the Republican National Committee. He 
told a victory dinner not long ago--I quote--``The No. 1 driver for our 
base motivationally is this war.''
  Dowd said war could be beneficial to the GOP in the 2002 elections. 
And then I quote: ``When an issue dominates the landscape like this one 
will dominate the landscape, I think through this election and probably 
for a long time to come, it puts Republicans on a very good footing.''
  I thought: Well, perhaps that is a pollster. Perhaps pollsters are 
paid to say what is best regardless of what other considerations ought 
to be made. Pollsters are paid to tell you about the politics of 
issues. And were it left with pollsters, perhaps I would not be as 
concerned.
  But then I read that Andy Card was asked: Well, why did this issue 
come before Washington and the country now? Why are we debating it in 
September? Where were we last year? Where were we last spring? And Mr. 
Card's answer was: ``From a marketing point of view, you don't 
introduce new products in August.''
  New products? War?
  And then I listen to reports of the Vice President. The Vice 
President comes to fundraisers, as he did just recently in Kansas. The 
headline written in the paper the next day about the speech he gave to 
that fundraiser was: Cheney talks about war: electing Taff would aid 
war effort.
  And then we find a diskette discovered in Lafayette Park, a computer 
diskette that was lost somewhere between a Republican strategy meeting 
in the White House and the White House.
  Advice was given by Karl Rove, and the quote on the disk was: ``Focus 
on war.''
  I guess, right from the beginning, I thought: Well, first it was 
pollsters, and then it was White House staff, and then it was the Vice 
President. And all along I was asked: Are you concerned about whether 
or not this war is politicized? And my answer, on every occasion, was: 
Yes. And then the followup question is: Is the White House politicizing 
the war? And I said: Without question, I can't bring myself to believe 
that it is. I can't believe any President or any administration would 
politicize the war. But then I read in the paper this morning, now even 
the President--the President is quoted in the Washington Post this 
morning as saying that the Democratic-controlled Senate is ``not 
interested in the security of the American people.''

  Not interested in the security of the American people?
  You tell Senator Inouye he is not interested in the security of the 
American people. You tell those who fought in Vietnam and in World War 
II they are not interested in the security of the American people.
  That is outrageous--outrageous.
  The President ought to apologize to Senator Inouye and every veteran 
who has fought in every war who is a Democrat in the Senate. He ought 
to apologize to the American people.
  That is wrong. We ought not politicize this war. We ought not 
politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death.
  I was in Normandy just last year. I have been in national cemeteries 
all over this country. And I have never seen anything but stars--the 
Star of David and crosses on those markers. I have never seen 
``Republican'' and ``Democrat.''
  This has to end, Mr. President. We have to get on with the business 
of our country. We have to rise to a higher level.
  Our Founding Fathers would be embarrassed by what they are seeing 
going on right now.
  We have to do better than this. Our standard of deportment ought to 
be better. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we are 
giving now.
  So, Mr. President, it is not too late to end this politicization. It 
is not too late to forget the pollsters, forget the campaign 
fundraisers, forget making accusations about how interested in national 
security Democrats are; and let's get this job done right.
  Let's rise to the occasion. That is what the American people are 
expecting. And we ought to give them no less.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed 
for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Democratic 
leader for the position he has taken here today. I commend him for the 
restraint he has shown in his remarks.
  I, too, was astounded upon reading this story in the Washington Post 
this morning. It reads as follows in part:

       As he seeks to boost Republican candidates in the midterm 
     elections, President Bush is increasing his emphasis on 
     terrorism and national security, shedding his previous 
     determination to demonstrate his concern about the flagging 
     economy.
       Four times in the past two days, Bush has suggested that 
     democrats do not care about national security, saying on 
     Monday that the Democratic-controlled Senate is ``not 
     interested in the security of the American people.'' His 
     remarks, intensifying a theme he introduced last month, were 
     quickly seconded and disseminated by House Majority Whip Tom 
     DeLay (R-Tex.).
       At a fundraiser for GOP House candidate Adam Taff in Kansas 
     Monday, Vice President Cheney said security would be 
     bolstered if Taff were to defeat Rep. Dennis Moore (D-Kan.). 
     ``Cheney talks about Iraq at congressional fundraiser/
     Electing Taff would aid war effort,'' read the headline in 
     the Topeka Capital-Journal.

  Mr. President, are we to believe this? Are we to believe that this 
President said what I have just quoted? This is the President who was 
going to change the tone in Washington.
  I am terribly disappointed. We are entering an election. War clouds 
loom over this country. Yet the President would say the Democratic-
controlled Senate is ``not interested in the security of the American 
people.''
  What about Max Cleland? Is he interested in the security of the 
American people? What about Danny Inouye? Is he interested in the 
security of the American people?
  I am disgusted by the tenor of the war debate that has seemingly 
overtaken this capital city. Here is the President of the Senate, the 
Vice President of the United States, out campaigning. The President is 
campaigning using war talk to win the election. The Vice President of 
the United States is barnstorming for Republican candidates. There, in 
at least one instance, he was telling voters that electing Republicans 
would aid the war effort.
  Is the President determined to make his party--that great party of 
Abraham Lincoln--the war party? What would Abraham Lincoln have to say 
if he were here?
  This war strategy seems to have been hatched by political strategists 
intent on winning the midterm election at any cost, even if that cost 
places this Nation on the brink of battle and the Nation's sons and 
daughters there on that brink. It is despicable. The distinguished 
majority leader used the word ``outrageous.'' He is exactly right. It 
is despicable that any President would attempt to use the serious 
matter of impending war as a tool in a campaign war.
  I am not going to continue to be silent. The blood of our sons and 
daughters, our soldiers, sailors, and airmen,

[[Page S9188]]

has far more value than a few votes in a ballot box.
  There is nothing more sobering than a decision to go to war, but the 
administration has turned the decision into a bumper sticker election 
theme. That is what I felt I saw in the beginning of this war on 
terrorism. It was being used politically also. It is clear now. It is 
out in the open. There it is.
  For the President to suggest the Senate is not interested in the 
security of the American people is outrageous. It is insulting. It is 
wrong, wrong, wrong. To suggest that one is unpatriotic simply because 
one is affiliated with a certain party and may oppose a war that may 
have horrendous consequences is irresponsible--irresponsible. It is the 
worst kind of political opportunism.
  I have been in this Congress 50 years. I have never seen a President 
of the United States or a Vice President of the United States stoop to 
such low level. It is your blood, your sons and daughters. Those who 
are looking at the Senate through the electronic lenses, it is your 
blood, your treasure.
  For the first time in the history of the Republic, the Nation is 
considering a preemptive strike against a sovereign state. I will not 
be silenced. I have no brief for Iraq, but I am not going to be 
silenced. I will not give the benefit of the doubt to the President. I 
will give the benefit of the doubt to the Constitution. I will give the 
benefit of the doubt to the American people who will soon be called 
upon, if this President has his way, to give their sons and daughters, 
the blood of this country.
  I do not defend the Iraqi regime. I do not justify its actions. But I 
also do not want to commit our sons and daughters to battle without a 
thorough understanding and a thorough debate. You silence me, if you 
can. There are others in this body who are going to speak up for their 
people.

  This administration is making the war their battle cry. That is their 
bumper sticker politics. They are putting it front and center. They 
don't want to talk about domestic issues. They don't want to talk about 
those things. So they choose to make the war center stage. OK.
  ``Lay on, McDuff. And damn'd be him that first cries, ``Hold, 
enough!'''
  My people in West Virginia expect me to speak out. If the Lord lets 
me live, I shall do that.
  I also do not want to commit our sons and daughters to battle without 
a thorough understanding of the motivations, the strategies, the 
repercussions of that battle.
  America fights wars, but America does not begin wars. This is my 
battle cry. This is yours. Each of you has sworn to support and defend 
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and 
domestic. There it is. That doesn't give this President, that doesn't 
give this Nation, a right to launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign 
nation. America fights wars, but America does not start wars.
  The American people have serious questions. The Nation's allies have 
serious questions. Members of this body have serious questions. These 
must be answered before going to war, and it is not now, nor was it 
ever, unpatriotic to ask questions.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The majority 
leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Inouye have 5 minutes of my leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I certainly do not object to any time 
Senator Inouye wants, but we have come to debate an amendment on the 
homeland security bill, and I would like to have an opportunity to 
speak on it. I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Senator Inouye.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the gentleman who resides at 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue is the President of the United States of America, 
and although the Constitution does not specifically state it, his most 
important chore is to keep our people united, to keep our Nation 
united.
  Accordingly, this morning I am saddened by the reports of my leader, 
the majority leader, and my leader, Senator Byrd of West Virginia, 
because it appears that our administration and our President are making 
statements that only serve to divide our people.
  I have been honored to serve as chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee. Four weeks ago, this subcommittee reported 
a bill unanimously. It is a Democratically controlled subcommittee, but 
it reported a measure unanimously. It went to the full committee, 
chaired by the Senator from West Virginia, and the committee reported 
that measure unanimously. It was reported to this floor, and by an 
almost unanimous vote--three Members had questions--it passed the 
Senate. That was 4 weeks ago. That was carried out by a Democratically 
controlled Senate.
  There are a few footnotes in history that I think we should recall. I 
listened to all the talk shows on Sunday. I am a good listener. I very 
seldom speak on the floor. One statement was made that some of us in 
the early 1990s questioned the war in the Persian Gulf. I was one of 
those. This spokesperson said: They questioned the war because they 
said a lot of body bags would be returning, and just a few returned. 
But we should recall that the war ended at the border of Iraq. If we 
had gone into Baghdad, we would have had many body bags, unless the 
United States had decided to do the most inhuman thing and wipe out 
Baghdad--men, women, and children.
  Some have now suggested: The war in Afghanistan has resulted in 100 
casualties. That is not a war.
  There is another footnote in history that we should recall. In that 
ancient war we engaged in 60 years ago, World War II, in the U.S. Army, 
95 percent of the men in uniform had no spouses; there were no 
children. Five percent had spouses and children. In my regiment, 4 
percent had spouses and children; 96 percent were young men, 18, 19, 
20. We were ready. We had no strings attached.
  Today, in the U.S. Army, over 77 percent of our men and women have 
spouses; they have children. We should be concerned about their 
sensitivities.
  It is not easy going into combat. No one enters battle planning to 
become a hero. You just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong 
time. If you stepped one foot to the right, the bullet would have 
missed you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
may have 5 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, there are those who plan war, and there 
are those who engage in war. As we have always said in the subcommittee 
and in the Appropriations Committee, in order to avoid war, we should 
be prepared for war. We voted for a bill to spend over $356 billion. 
Does that suggest we are not concerned about the security of our 
people? And when we passed it unanimously--bipartisan, united--does 
that suggest we are not concerned about the security of this country?
  I am concerned about the security of this country. I am concerned 
about what history will say about this Nation 50 years from now. Did we 
brutalize people or did we carry on ourselves as a civilized people? As 
my leader from West Virginia stated, to attack a nation that has not 
attacked us will go down in history as something of which we should not 
be proud.
  Mr. President, I can assure you that this Democratically controlled 
Senate, and especially the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, will 
support the President of the United States because that man is my 
President also. Certainly, I did not vote for him, but he is my 
President, and it grieves me when my President makes statements that 
divide this Nation.
  I can assure you this is not a time for Democrats and Republicans to 
say I have more medals than you, and I have lost more limbs than you, 
and we have shed more blood than you. This is not the time for that. 
This is a time in which we should be working together, debating this 
issue. As the Senator from West Virginia said, it is American to 
question the President. It is American to debate the issues. I stand 
before you as a proud member of the Democratically controlled Senate.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

[[Page S9189]]

  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator from Texas yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The Senator from Texas has been 
recognized. The Senator controls 1 hour.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask if the Senator from Texas will 
allow me to speak about 5 minutes before he begins.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, the pending business is homeland 
security. I came over to offer an amendment with the Senator from 
Georgia. The majority leader has made a statement. The distinguished 
President pro tempore of the Senate has made a statement.
  Our distinguished and beloved colleague from Hawaii has made a 
statement, and we are here to debate a war which we have an opportunity 
to do something about now. We are here to debate an issue where we have 
an opportunity to prevent anybody's blood from being spilled by having 
an effective homeland security program, and I want to exercise my right 
to speak on that issue.
  I want to be brief on the subject, but accusing a President of 
starting a war for political reasons is a pretty serious accusation. 
This Senate, on several occasions, has passed resolutions that in the 
strongest terms called on the President, if he so decided, to use force 
against Iraq.
  The United Nations has passed resolution after resolution that Saddam 
Hussein has rejected. So the idea that somehow this is a new problem 
and has suddenly been created out of whole cloth as we face the 
election simply will not bear up to scrutiny.
  Secondly, there has been a confusion between two wars, and I think 
this is a very important issue. In listening to all of those quotes, 
most of what has been said has had to do with a force resolution which 
we are not debating today, which we will be debating next week or the 
week after.
  As Jefferson said so long ago, good men with the same facts are prone 
to disagree. Based on our history in dealing with Saddam Hussein, based 
on the threat he poses, based on the new information on that threat 
which was made available by the British Intelligence Service and by the 
Prime Minister in today's paper, I reach a totally different conclusion 
than many of my Democrat colleagues in that I believe the President 
should be supported, and I believe a resolution of that support should 
pass in the Senate.
  As clearly as I can say, I think internationalism is important, I 
think the United Nations has a role, but when we are talking about the 
lives and safety of Americans, I am not going to turn those lives and 
that safety over to the U.N.
  As much as I love our allies, especially the British, I am not going 
to turn those lives and that safety over to our allies either. When we 
are talking about American lives, the buck stops with us. No matter 
what the United Nations decides, we are never, ever, under any 
circumstances, going to delegate to the United Nations the protection 
of American lives.
  Hopefully, the United Nations is going to come to their senses and 
support the President, but the idea that we ought to change this 
resolution, when we do debate it, to say we should work within the U.N. 
I am not willing to put American lives at risk based on what the U.N. 
may or may not do.
  A final point, in response to the debate we just had, we have a 
commingling of two different wars. The first war is with Iraq, and we 
are going to debate that in 2 weeks. Everybody will have a chance to 
state their position. I wanted to make mine clear today. The second 
war, however, is the war on terrorism. That is the war we are fighting 
today. That is the debate we are having today.
  When we started this debate as to giving the President the power to 
protect America from the horror we saw on September 11, it never 
crossed my mind we would end up with a Senate that was almost perfectly 
divided, where Republicans were on one side and Democrats, in the 
preponderance, were on the other.
  There is one exception, apparently, on each side at the moment. I 
have not looked into people's hearts. We have not had a vote. I do not 
know where people are down to the individual Senator, but it certainly 
appears at the moment that we find ourselves in the extraordinary 
circumstance that we are almost perfectly divided along party lines 
over the issue of giving the President the power he has asked for to 
defend the American homeland and to defend our people.

  Maybe this should not be a partisan issue, but if one defines a 
partisan issue as an issue that ends up being split along party lines 
then by that definition the debate we are engaged in right now, has 
become divided along partisan lines. The point I want to be sure people 
understand is the last statement quoted by the President was not about 
Iraq. It was about defending the American homeland.
  Why has this become a political issue? I do not believe Iraq is going 
to be a political issue, despite the fact some of our colleagues today 
have expressed reservations about Iraq. I believe in the end the 
President is going to get a much stronger vote on a force resolution on 
Iraq today than we got in 1991. In the end, I do not believe Iraq is 
going to be a partisan political issue.
  Why has homeland security divided the Senate right down the middle 
along partisan lines? The reason is, it involves a very tough choice. 
Government is about making tough choices. When one gets outside the 
civics class, it is not about black and white, right and wrong. It is 
about tough choices. It is about give and take. It is about giving up 
some things to have others. In fact, this whole idea that everything 
can be broken down into all positive and all negative completely 
misrepresents the reality of the world.
  There seems to be no objection to taking all of these Government 
agencies and putting them into one agency. So far as I know, 100 
Senators are willing to do that. But remarkably, roughly half the 
Members of the Senate seem intent on taking away emergency powers the 
President had on September 11, but that would be taken away by the 
Lieberman bill that is before us.
  I wonder how many Americans who are listening to this debate 
understand the proposal made by Senator Lieberman, on behalf of the 
vast majority of Democrats, would actually weaken the President's 
ability to use national security powers to protect America. I do not 
think people understand that.
  Our Nation has been attacked. Thousands of our citizens have been 
killed. The lives of countless thousands have been altered forever. We 
are debating homeland security. We have a proposal before the Senate 
that says we want to take powers away from President Bush, powers that 
President Clinton had, that Bush 41 had, that President Reagan had, 
that President Carter had, and powers they used.
  Now, why are we debating such a proposal? How could it possibly make 
any sense that we were perfectly content to give every President since 
President Carter the ability to declare a national emergency and set 
aside business as usual in the Federal bureaucracy to respond to an 
emergency? But suddenly, as we are creating this Department, the 
majority proposes we take these powers away from President Bush.
  In other words, we will put everybody in the Department, but the 
price the President would have to pay is less ability to use emergency 
powers than four of his predecessors have had. The President has 
rejected that. Does anyone blame him? Can anybody believe that any 
President, especially this President, would sit idly by while the 
Congress takes away powers that his four predecessors had?
  I don't think anybody would think that is realistic. Why are we doing 
it? Why is the Senate almost evenly divided along partisan lines on 
this issue? The reason is, we are down to a tough choice. The tough 
choice is the following: To give the President the power to put the 
right person in the right place at the right time to do the right job 
in protecting lives, we have to change the way the Government operates. 
But there are powerful political interests that are opposed to making 
that change. And there are people who are committed to that system, the 
system we call the civil service system.
  I remind my colleagues we have had study after study after study, 
studies headed by Paul Volcker, appointed by President Clinton to be 
head of the Federal Reserve bank. We have had studies by Lee Hamilton, 
a Democrat in the House, and Warren Rudman, our

[[Page S9190]]

beloved colleague from the Senate. In study after study concerning 
national security, they have concluded the following, and this is the 
Volcker Commission: ``The current system is slow. It is legally 
trammeled and intellectually confused. It is impossible to explain to 
potential candidates. It is almost certainly not fulfilling the spirit 
of our mandate to hire the most meritorious candidates.''
  That is not President Bush talking. That is not Senator Gramm 
talking. That is Paul Volcker talking. The Rudman-Hamilton bipartisan 
commission on national security concluded that we needed an agile, 
flexible personnel system. And then they wrote: ``Today's civil service 
has become a drag on our national security. The morass of rules, 
regulation, and bureaucracy prevent the Government from hiring and 
retaining the workforce that is required to combat the threats of the 
future.''
  What the President has proposed is that he have the ability to 
streamline the process, and when it comes to a choice between national 
security and the status quo in the Government system, the status quo 
must yield. When it comes down to union work rules, business as usual, 
or the life and safety of our citizens, the President says that the 
system has to yield. Civil service rights are important, but they are 
not as important as the right of Americans to life and freedom. When 
our people's lives are at stake, business as usual in Washington has to 
yield.
  The substitute that Senator Miller and I have offered prohibits the 
ability to discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, national 
origin, and arbitrary and capricious factors, but allows the President 
the flexibility to hire without waiting 6 months, to fire without 
waiting 18 months, to eliminate a system where 99 percent of Government 
employees get pay raises whether they received good evaluations or not.

  I am not saying one side is right and one side is wrong. Obviously, I 
believe the President is right, and I believe my Democrat colleagues, 
other than Senator Miller--and maybe some I don't know about--are 
wrong. Obviously, I believe that or I would not be standing up here. My 
opinion does not make their position morally inferior to my position. 
The division is about what is more important.
  That is what the division is about. You have powerful concerns on 
both sides. You have the concern of national security and you have the 
concern of Government employees, one of the most powerful political 
constituencies in America.
  I am not saying they are wrong and we are right. I am saying we 
disagree and we disagree almost perfectly along party lines and we have 
to make a choice. You cannot be for the primacy of existing work rules 
of the Federal Government and be for the primacy of national security. 
You have to make a decision.
  I have made my choice. My choice is, when Government work rules 
impede the protection of American lives, they have to yield. That is my 
choice. Many of my colleagues appear to have made a different choice.
  What are we talking about when we are talking about changing union 
work rules? I have heard over and over and over again that we are 
eliminating merit and unions.
  First, the substitute Senator Miller and I have introduced is a 
substitute which strictly constrains the President to make decisions 
based on merit, and it limits it strictly to those areas where lives 
are at stake. I will give some concrete examples. In 1987, the Customs 
Service at Logan Airport in Boston tried to change the inspection 
facility to make it safer and more efficient. But there was a union 
work rule that said the inspection facility could not be changed in any 
significant way without a renegotiation of the union contract. So guess 
what. The Treasury employee labor union went to the FLRA and they 
overruled Customs. And Customs was not able to change the inspection 
facility.

  Look, maybe when you are talking about trying to keep drugs out of 
the country or illegal aliens, those work rules are more important. But 
when you are talking about lives, are they more important? If we can 
increase the probability of keeping chemical or biological or nuclear 
weapons from coming in through an airport in America by changing the 
inspection facility, are we supposed to wait around 18 months to 
negotiate with the union about the ability to change the room in which 
the workers are working? Some of our colleagues think so, but I do not 
think so. I do not believe the American people think so.
  Let me give another example. You all remember Barry McCaffrey, the 
general who was appointed by President Clinton to be drug czar. He made 
note in the San Francisco Examiner about the different work rules of 
the different Government agencies that were protecting America's 
borders:

       Officials at one agency were actually forbidden to open the 
     trunks of cars, a policy well known to drug dealers.

  Look, maybe it makes sense to some people that a union work rule says 
people working for this agency or in this classification can not open a 
trunk at a border inspection, and so dope gets into the country or an 
illegal alien gets into the country. But if it is a nuclear weapon, 
does it make sense? Do we really think preserving that work rule that 
General McCaffrey pointed out was being gamed by drug dealers--do we 
really believe that is more important than keeping a nuclear weapon 
from getting into the United States?
  That is the issue we are debating. I could go down the list and go on 
and on. In terms of deployment of the Border Patrol special task 
forces, the union work rule says you cannot deploy somebody where there 
is not a barber shop, a place of worship, or a dry cleaners. If we are 
just trying to keep dope out of the country, or keep out illegal 
aliens, maybe that is not so unreasonable. I do not agree with that, 
but maybe I am wrong.
  But when you are trying to keep weapons of mass destruction that can 
kill thousands of our people out of the country, do we really want to 
go to the FLRA and spend months and months and months trying to 
renegotiate this? Or do we want to give the President the power to say: 
Lives are at stake. As long as that is the case, under the emergency 
powers as President I am going to send the Border Patrol where there is 
no dry cleaner.
  That is what we are talking about. That is what this issue is about--
the ability to deploy on merit, when lives are at stake, instead of 
seniority. We are talking about the ability of agencies to set gun 
policies--something today they cannot do because of union work rules--
and search policies. When we are worried about drugs getting into the 
country or contraband of various kinds, maybe we want to say the union 
work rules are more important than the search policy. So you have to go 
to FLRA to renegotiate with the union and spend 18 months doing it. But 
if lives are at stake, and we are talking about a nuclear weapon 
getting into New York Harbor, surely people see the difference. These 
are the kinds of things we are talking about.
  Let me try to sum up where we are and what the issue is. We are 
divided almost perfectly along partisan lines with the exception of one 
Member on each side. Is preserving this old horse-and-buggy system from 
the 1950s--that was designed primarily to protect workers, not to get 
the job done--more important than enhancing the probability that we can 
protect lives? I say no. Some others say yes. That is the issue.

  It ends up being contentious because we cannot have it both ways. You 
can't serve two masters. You have to make a choice, and the choice I 
choose is national security.
  Madam President, how much time have I used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 27 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I ask for 10 minutes off the leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing no objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. This time would not count toward our hour.
  Madam President, Senator Miller and I have spent 4 weeks listening 
and participating in this debate. We have looked at the House bill, a 
bill that the President says he would sign. We have looked at the 
President's proposal, a bill the President would sign. And we have 
looked at the bill before us, a bill the President has said he would 
veto. I do not know how we promote homeland security by giving the 
President a bill he would veto.
  We have made some 25 changes in the President's proposal. Quite 
frankly, the

[[Page S9191]]

President has compromised more than I would have compromised had I been 
in his position. But the President wants to try to work on a bipartisan 
basis, and he wants this bill because lives are at stake.
  We have limited, very narrowly limited, the President's power to use 
his emergency waiver in civil service. We have limited it by setting 
out parameters which he cannot violate in terms of his personnel 
flexibility. We have adopted some 95 percent of the Lieberman bill. We 
have adopted provisions of the House bill that represented bipartisan 
consensus. And we have talked to some 25 Members of the Senate and we 
have adopted some 18 measures that have been influenced by Members. The 
President has said this is as far as he can go.
  What does that mean? Is it as far as he can go because he is mad 
about something? Is it as far as he can go because he is tired of the 
Democrats being successful, the Democrat leadership being successful in 
stopping him from doing what he wants? No. The President has said this 
is as far as he can go because he does not believe that he can 
effectively do the job if he gives up any more power. He doesn't 
believe if he gives up more power that he is getting the tools he needs 
to fight and win the war on terrorism. And I agree with him. I think he 
is right.
  What are the issues we come to? The biggest issue we come down to is 
the issue I have already talked about at great lengths, and that is the 
issue of letting the President keep the powers that every President 
since Jimmy Carter has had. The Lieberman bill takes away power to 
declare a national emergency and to take extraordinary action that 
President Carter had, that President Reagan had, that President Bush 
had, and that President Clinton had. The President has said he is not 
going to let power that he had on September 11 be taken away in a bill 
that is supposed to be responding to September 11.
  Interestingly enough, the President has offered a compromise where he 
will do things that President Clinton did not have to do when he used 
that power. He will have to notify Congress in advance, he will have to 
make public a declaration as to why he did what he did and his 
justification, something that President Clinton did not have to do. 
That is how much our President wants to get this job done. But has that 
been met by reasonable compromise on the other side? No.
  We have a bill before us that takes that power away from the 
President. That is not going to happen. It is just not going to 
happen. We are not going to let it happen. The world may come to an 
end, but we are not going to take powers away from this President that 
four other Presidents have had when we are trying to fight and win a 
war on terrorism. It is just not going to happen.

  The idea that it should be asked for is an idea that I would hate to 
have to defend. I would hate to have to go back to Mexia and stand up 
in front of the print shop of my dear friend Dicky Flatt and explain to 
people that we are going to take some of power the President has to 
protect us and we are going to do it in a bill that is supposed to be 
responding to the death of thousands of our citizens in Washington and 
New York.
  Maybe you can make that sale in Mexia. But I cannot. I am not that 
good at it. I am talking about political ability. I could not make that 
sale, and I don't believe anybody else can make that sale in Mexia. 
Maybe they can make that somewhere else. I don't think they can make 
that sale in Young and Harris Counties, either.
  But that is the first issue. What we have gotten from our colleagues 
on the other side of this issue is a series of proposals that all boil 
down to one thing: The power of the unions, and the power of doing it 
the same old way it has been done since the 1950s will be preserved, 
and the power of the President in the name of national security will be 
reduced.
  That is the first major issue where we are at an impasse. We have 
language now that was written by the Public Employee Labor Union. It 
was offered in the House. It was rejected in the House. Yet that is 
being proposed once again. The answer is no. I don't know what part of 
that old country and western song they do not understand, What part of 
``no'' don't you understand? But the answer is no.
  The second issue is: When lives are on the line, should the President 
have the ability to hire people and have the flexibility to do it 
without waiting 6 months? Should he have the power if somebody comes to 
work drunk in a national security department to fire him without having 
to go through 18 months of rigmarole? I think the answer is yes. I 
think the answer is yes. But, obviously, the people on the other side 
of this issue think the answer is no.
  Those are the two issues. You might say this is a great big, old, 
thick bill, and you sent a great big, old, thick amendment.
  Let me make it clear. I sent that amendment for myself, for Senator 
Miller, for Senator Thompson, for the President, and for some 40 
Members of the Senate. That was our best effort at a real compromise 
where the President gave up powers he really, honestly to God, believes 
he needs. But he did it to try to solve this problem and to get this 
Department established and to get on with defending national security.
  The terrorists are not waiting for this debate. I don't know what 
they are doing. But it scares me.
  When you look at these great big, thick bills, we are really apart 
only on two issues. What should come first? Business as usual, or 
national security? And should the President have the power when lives 
are at stake to hire, to promote, and to operate in the most efficient 
manner possible this part of the Federal Government when the goal is to 
protect the lives and safety of our people? That, I think, is the 
choice.
  Final point: Senator Miller and I have worked hard with the White 
House for 4 weeks to provide what we believe is a compromise. It is the 
first real compromise that has been proposed, in my opinion. We want a 
vote on it. There is going to be an effort later by people on the other 
side of the issue to defy us that vote by amending our bill in these 
two critical areas so we never get an up-or-down vote on the 
President's program.

  I am not crying foul by saying it is against the Senate rules to do 
that. I am not saying it is wrong to do it in terms of the way the 
Senate operates. I am saying I think the President deserves an up-or-
down vote on his program. If you want to vote no, you have the right to 
vote no. But don't you think we ought to let the President have an 
opportunity to have his program voted on in the way he would like to 
see it voted on?
  When that amendment is offered, we are going to use our rights under 
the Senate rules to hold out for a vote on our substitute. I believe in 
the end we will get it. I am sure some people on the other side of the 
aisle will stand up and say, you are delaying, you are delaying, you 
are doing this, you are doing that.
  All we want is to vote. We have about 40 Members of the Senate who 
want to speak on it. They want to be heard. They will be heard. But, in 
the end, the President is going to be heard. In the end, the people are 
going to be heard. We want an up-or-down vote on the President's 
program.
  I hope we are going to win. If we don't win, then we are going to be 
in a situation of trying to pass a bill the President will veto, and 
maybe we will have to wait until after the election and try again. That 
will mean that for 3 months we are not going to have the program in 
effect to protect national security. I think that is a risk. As a 
result, I want us to pass a bill.
  I don't think any Member of the Senate can stand up and say they 
wanted to talk about this issue but Senator Miller, Senator Thompson, 
or I have not been willing to try to work this thing out. But so far, 
we have seen no effort to work it out. So far it has been that we are 
going to take power away from the President, and if you don't like it, 
that is all right. Well, we don't like it, and it is not all right. It 
is not going to happen.
  Ultimately, the debate ends here and the public has to make a 
decision. Is this a partisan issue? God knows that it should not be 
partisan. But, if you define partisan as being divided roughly along 
party lines, it is a partisan issue. It shouldn't be. I don't want it 
to be. There are many people on the other side of the aisle who don't 
want it to be, but it is.
  In saying that, it is simply telling the truth. It is a terrible 
indictment of

[[Page S9192]]

us, a terrible indictment of the Senate, but it is telling the truth.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Illinois 
such time as he requires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Madam President. And I thank the chairman of 
the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Lieberman.
  Let me say for the record, this bill--the creation of a Department of 
Homeland Security--is a bill that has had two births.
  It was first born in our committee under Senator Lieberman's 
leadership before President Bush proposed its creation. We worked for 
the creation of this Department--believing the concept was sound--to 
bring together, in reorganization, agencies that are necessary to 
protect America.
  When we had a vote in the Governmental Affairs Committee on Senator 
Lieberman's proposal, I was happy to support it, but not a single 
Republican member of the committee supported it.
  Not 2 weeks later, President Bush came forward and said: I now 
support a Department of Homeland Security. And Senator Lieberman said: 
We will work with you. Let us put together a plan to bring it forward 
in a bipartisan fashion because, harkening back to an earlier statement 
on this floor: There is no partisanship when it comes to protecting 
America or its security or its freedom.
  Senator Lieberman, working with Senator Thompson, tried to bring out 
a bill, a bipartisan bill, to address the President's concern about a 
Department of Homeland Security. I think we have done a good job. I 
think we have brought this bill to the floor in good faith. We had a 
lengthy hearing, many witnesses. Amendments were considered; some 
adopted and some rejected. The orderly process of Congress was 
followed. My hat is off to Senator Lieberman for his leadership.
  But to think we have spent 4 straight weeks on the floor of this 
Senate unable to bring this bill to closure is clear evidence that 
there are people on this floor who do not want to see this bill passed 
in any form.
  When the Senator from Texas comes up and says: Well, you have to 
understand, we are going to bring an amendment, and a few of our 
colleagues would like to speak on it on the floor, perhaps 40 Senators 
would like to speak on it on the floor--well, be prepared, that just 
means a filibuster by another name.
  It means, frankly, there are forces at work on this floor that do not 
want to see this bill passed. They want to drag it out not 4 weeks or 6 
weeks but 8 weeks and beyond. They have some other agenda other than 
giving the President a Department of Homeland Security. That is 
unfortunate.
  I think Senator Lieberman and the members of the committee have shown 
good faith from the start. We have come to the floor day after weary 
day, many times with absolutely nothing happening, except the threat of 
another filibuster. And here we stand. Here we stand this day without 
the Department of Homeland Security bill passing the Senate. I think it 
is unfortunate. I think it is sad.
  Earlier, the Senator from Texas said: Now, some of those who spoke 
earlier, such as Senator Daschle, Senator Byrd, and Senator Inouye, 
about their concern over the President's statements that raised a 
question as to whether the Democrat-controlled Senate was, in fact, 
committed to the security of America--the Senator from Texas said: 
Understand, he was not referring to the war on Iraq. He was only 
referring to this bill, the Department of Homeland Security.
  Well, I am glad the Senator from Texas made the distinction. But it 
does not allay my fears that what we have emerging is partisanship when 
it comes to the security of America and the rhetoric that is coming out 
of the campaign forces, the campaign machine of the White House. It is 
no comfort to me to be told: Oh, they are just questioning your 
patriotism when it comes to the war on terrorism, not on the war on 
Iraq. I am sorry, that is unacceptable.

  When September 11 occurred last year, President Bush did not even 
have to make the appeal to Congress. Within hours, Congress came 
together on a bipartisan basis. We came together and not only sang 
``God Bless America,'' we also came together, within a few days, to 
give this President the authority and resources he needed to wage the 
war on terrorism.
  There was never any question that this Nation would stand together--
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--and we did, as did Capitol 
Hill. We have stood with this President.
  For those who are trying to fire up the campaign rhetoric for this 
coming election, questioning the patriotism of anyone in the Senate who 
would even offer an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security 
bill goes too far. Whether this questioning of patriotism is over the 
war on terrorism or the war on Iraq, it is entirely inappropriate. It 
is an afront to the many veterans in this Senate on both sides. It is 
an afront to many of us who believe this country is something we hold 
dear, and who try, in every single vote we cast, to keep that in mind.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator for a question.
  Mr. REID. Did the Senator hear the statement of Senator Daschle, the 
majority leader, today?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes, I did.
  Mr. REID. Did the Senator hear the statement of the Presidential 
pollster, and also that of Karl Rove? And did the Senator hear, as I 
did, the direct quotes that they wanted a strategy for the campaigns 
that dealt with the war? Did the Senator hear that?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes, I did.
  Mr. REID. That didn't seem to say anything about homeland security, 
did it?
  Mr. DURBIN. Not a bit. It suggested to me, I say to the Senator from 
Nevada, coming back to this bill, when we go to the merits of this 
debate, let's be very honest about what this concerns.
  This is a question about moving some 150,000 or 170,000 employees of 
the Federal Government under a new roof called the Department of 
Homeland Security. I support it. I supported it when Senator Lieberman 
offered it. I supported it when the President suggested it. I still 
support it.
  But the question before us today is, for 40,000 or 50,000 of these 
employees, when they come under that new roof, will they bring with 
them collective bargaining rights that they have had, have earned, have 
worked for, perhaps, all of their adult lives?
  There are those who argue--and you have heard it from the Senator 
from Texas--once they come into this new Department, we can't afford to 
run the risk that someone who belongs to a labor union can really rise 
to the challenge of defending America.
  Pardon me, Madam President. Do I recall correctly those profiles in 
courage of September 11, 2001, of which so many of us are so proud? Did 
you stop and think for a moment that those New York firefighters, going 
up those stairs in those burning buildings to rescue people did not 
know--complete strangers--doing their duty to their country, meeting 
the duty of their profession--did we stop and reflect, for a moment, 
that they were carrying, perhaps in their wallet, next to the picture 
of their family, a union card? Did anyone question their patriotism, 
their loyalty to our country, their devotion to so many people?

  Oh, and yet today we hear speech after speech: We just can't run the 
risk of letting people who are members of labor unions in this 
situation, public employees----
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator yield? If the Senator is going to quote 
me, he ought to do it accurately.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask that order be restored in the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the floor.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the Senator from Nevada for a question.
  Mr. REID. The Senator would agree, would he not, that the debate over 
this labor issue is one that we should have, and it has nothing to do 
with patriotism? I see on the floor one of the sponsors of the 
amendment, the Senator from Georgia, who is a distinguished American. 
He has written a book about the Marine Corps. No one can question his 
patriotism, his qualifications.

[[Page S9193]]

  Wouldn't you agree a debate on labor-management relations is 
something we should have, and it has nothing to do with patriotism?
  I have listened to the Senator from Georgia and how strongly he feels 
about Federal employees, and how we have to change, in his opinion, the 
way employees are treated. But that is an issue, would the Senator 
agree, that has nothing to do with patriotism?
  Mr. DURBIN. I agree completely with the Senator from Nevada. For the 
Vice President, the President, or their campaign advisers to suggest 
that if we disagree on a labor-management issue in this new Department, 
we really are not committed to the freedom and security of America goes 
way too far. And I am afraid that is the point that was raised on the 
floor today and needs to be revisited.
  I will yield to the Senator from Texas, if he has a question.
  Mr. GRAMM. Yes. The only point I was going to make is, never in my 
remarks did I say anything about people being a member of a union. And 
if I am going to be quoted--and I like to be quoted; and I think it 
improves the Senator's speech to quote me--I would like him to do it 
accurately.
  I never said anything about a member of a union. I simply said that 
when you have work rules that prevent you from deploying more patrol 
agents where there is no laundry, or where you are not able to change 
an inspection room without renegotiating a union contract, and lives 
are at stake, there needs to be some give. That is all I said. I did 
not say anything about joining a union or never mentioned a union in 
terms of the right of people to belong to it or their union membership 
or lack thereof having any relevance to do with this whatsoever.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Texas, but that is a distinction 
without a difference. To say, on one hand, I am not against labor 
unions, I am just against collective bargaining rights, is to get to 
the heart of the issue.
  Let me give you an illustration that makes my point.
  After September 11, 2001, we discovered that most of the terrorists 
responsible for the World Trade Center were coming over the northern 
border of the United States from Canada. We said that we were going to 
beef up efforts at the border to check people coming in so that others 
did not come in to threaten the United States. This administration said 
it. The Border Patrol said it. And do you know what. We did not do it. 
Two Border Patrol agents came forward and testified before a committee 
of Congress that it was all talk, we weren't putting the resources and 
the manpower in the right place to protect America after September 11, 
2001.

  These were Federal employees, members of labor unions with collective 
bargaining rights. Do you know what happened to them, I ask the Senator 
from Texas? Do you have any idea? They were fired from their jobs for 
testifying before Congress, terminated from their employment. Of 
course, there was a hearing because they had collective bargaining 
rights, and these whistleblowers were restored to their positions.
  If we are going to talk about what is at stake, let me tell you this.
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator yield on that?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will after I have made my point. The point I am making 
at this juncture is that collective bargaining rights make a 
difference. It is not a question about how bright the light is over the 
coffee pot for the employees taking their break and what color uniforms 
they are wearing. That is, I am afraid, a ridiculous extreme when we 
look at collective bargaining rights. It is the right of an individual 
employee at our Border Patrol to be able to stand before a committee of 
Congress and say: I don't care what my boss is telling you; I don't 
care what they are saying in their press release; they are not doing 
the job to protect America.
  For these Border Patrol agents to stand up and tell us the truth 
under oath before a committee of Congress should not be grounds for 
termination. But they were. Thank goodness they had collective 
bargaining rights and their jobs were restored. I don't believe being a 
member of a labor union automatically qualifies you to be ready to 
fight for our Nation's security and be involved in intelligence 
gathering, but it certainly does not disqualify you. There are good, 
loyal, patriotic Americans who have collective bargaining rights.
  Make no mistake, the bill reported to the Senate gives this President 
the authority, which he needs; if any individual employee, because of 
their new job assignments or because of the sensitivity of their 
assignments, needs to be removed from a bargaining unit, there is a way 
to do it, a legitimate, honest way. That is the point we are debating. 
To suggest that that has something to do with love of America and 
patriotism--I don't see it.
  What we have before us and what concerns the Senator from Texas is, 
we have a bipartisan group that has come together and said: We have 
come up with a compromise. Let's deal with it.
  As Senator Bumpers of Arkansas used to say: The Senator from Texas 
hates this bipartisan compromise like the devil hates holy water. He is 
afraid if we bring this to the floor and get a vote supporting the 
bipartisan position, all of his arguments and the President's arguments 
are weakened and disappear. That is what concerns him about this 
process and why he is promising 40 Senators who will speak interminably 
and drag this bill on for another 4 weeks.
  If the President needs a Department of Homeland Security--and I 
believe he does--let's have this up-or-down vote. Let's decide where 
the will of the Senate is going. Don't be afraid of the will of Senate. 
Don't be afraid of the will of the people. Don't be afraid to say that 
collective bargaining does not disqualify people from defending America 
and from serving their Nation proudly.
  Many of the people in these agencies are veterans who have served 
this Nation with pride and have risked their lives for the flag. To say 
as they come to a new Department that they somehow have to give up 
their rights to collective bargaining is unfair.

  It has been said that it takes up to a year to fire an employee under 
civil service. That is a total myth. During their first year, employees 
can be terminated without notice, and 36 percent of new employees were 
removed during their probationary period in the year 2001. Any employee 
can be terminated with 30 days' notice.
  Incidentally, in fiscal year 2000, it was said that out of 1.8 
million Federal employees, only 6 were fired because they were found 
incapable of doing their job; and in 2001, only 3 out of 1.8 million 
were fired. These statistics grossly underestimate the number of 
Federal employees fired each year. The Republican claim that only three 
people were fired in 2001 refers to the three employees who were 
immediately removed for national security reasons only. In fiscal year 
2001, 8,920 Federal employees were terminated and removed for 
disciplinary reasons.
  The fact is, under civil service, employees can be removed. The fact 
is, under the bill that came out of the Governmental Affairs Committee, 
there is a procedure in national security for the President to make 
that determination. That is an issue.
  I respect the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Georgia for 
what they are bringing as a substitute measure. Let me tell you this: 
They are leaving out some very critical elements of the bill brought 
out of the Governmental Affairs Committee.
  After September 11 of last year, I focused on one particular issue 
that troubled me. I learned in the months leading up to it of the gross 
inadequacy of the information technology of the agencies of our 
Government relating to law enforcement and intelligence, the FBI being 
the classic example of an agency dealing with the most primitive 
technology.
  I have worked for over a year to try to bring modernization of 
computers and information technology into intelligence gathering and 
law enforcement. I have spoken to everyone--Attorney General Ashcroft, 
FBI Director Mueller, the Vice President, as well as the President of 
the United States--about what I consider to be one of the glaring 
examples of our inability to deal with terrorism.
  As a result, I prepared and offered an amendment which was on the 
Governmental Affairs bill that came to the floor and is still pending 
today. This amendment establishes that at the

[[Page S9194]]

Federal Government level, we will start blending together the computer 
architecture of different agencies of the Federal Government so that 
they are not only modern but they are interoperable, so they can 
communicate with one another, pass information along. If the FBI has a 
most wanted list or danger list, they can pass that along to the 
Federal Aviation Administration and the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service.
  I am sorry to report that does not exist today. I worked long and 
hard on this amendment. It had the support of all of my colleagues on 
the Governmental Affairs Committee. They believe, as I do, that this is 
a critical element in the defense of America.
  But the substitute amendment being offered by the Senator from Texas 
doesn't include this provision. They have decided it is unnecessary, or 
at least they have not addressed it. I sincerely hope they will at 
least reconsider that if we do bring this forward and this substitute 
becomes the bill we are going to amend, they could introduce a motion 
of cloture, for example, raise germaneness questions.
  If we don't include it, some element of information technology in a 
Department of Homeland Security, we are fooling ourselves. We are 
saying we are creating a new Department that has a brandnew nameplate 
on the door with 170,000 employees but with computers that are 
inadequate to the job.
  When I spoke to Gov. Tom Ridge about this amendment, he said: I 
support this. It is a force multiplier. That means it takes the 
existing resources of our Government and makes them that much more 
effective in fighting terrorism.
  The substitute offered by the Senator from Texas does not include 
that. That is sad.
  Frankly, it may be a political victory for his substitute to prevail, 
but it will not be a victory in the war against terrorism. We should 
put the weapons in place, the arsenal we need to protect America on a 
bipartisan basis, looking not only to employees of the Department but 
also the resources and technology available in the Department.
  It has been made clear on this floor that when it comes to the 
security of the Nation, there should not be any partisanship 
whatsoever. We can stand here as Americans and Members of the Senate 
and debate the provisions of this bill and others, and no one should 
call into question our patriotism.
  There is no reason we should take the roles and lives of 40,000 or 
50,000 new employees of this Department and say it is basically going 
to be impossible for them to serve their Nation and to have their 
rights as employees respected. We can do both. They have already proven 
we can do both. To try to eliminate their rights to collective 
bargaining or to reduce them dramatically to a point where they are 
meaningless is unfair to the men and women who have served us so well 
in so many different ways, who are proud to have these collective 
bargaining rights and be members of labor unions.
  Before we adopt this substitute, consider the elements it does not 
include. One of the elements is the fact that it does not deal with the 
information technology that is essential to fighting a war on terrorism 
in the 21st century. Their bill is silent on what I consider to be one 
of the most important elements of this war and one of the most 
important weapons we can use to bring it to a successful conclusion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield myself a moment or two or as 
much time as I require. I will yield in a moment so Senator Miller may 
speak.
  While he was on the floor, I wanted to thank Senator Durbin for the 
substantial contribution he made to the committee's proposal for a 
Department of Homeland Security overall and the specific, unique, very 
valuable proposal he made regarding information technology.
  This is really a key to all sorts of activities in our world today, 
including homeland security; the ability to interconnect levels of our 
government, different agencies that will be part of the new Department 
and Federal, State, county, and local governments. I appreciate it.
  Senator Gramm and I have had discussions, and at some point, as the 
most controversial parts of this discussion work their way to either an 
agreement or the Senate works its will, I hope we can sit and talk 
about sections of our committee bill, such as Senator Durbin's, which 
are not partisan; they are good Government, with a capital G, good. We 
ought to be able to reach a bipartisan agreement to include that in 
whatever Department of Homeland Security we create.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, will the Senator yield for 2 minutes? I 
do not want the Senator to lose the floor.
  Mr. MILLER. I yield.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I would like to make a couple responses. 
First, let me give you the actual figures of people being fired from 
the Federal Government. There are 1.8 million people on the Federal 
payroll. In the year 2001, three of them were fired outright. The 
previous administration, the Clinton administration, found that 64,340 
Federal workers were poor performers.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me finish my point. Only 434 of them went through the 
removal process, and that process takes as long as 18 months, and many 
of them remained on the payroll. That is the first point.
  The second point, the Senator talks about INS. In 1990, at the 
Honolulu Airport, the Immigration and Naturalization Service was 
worried about a surge in flights and the long lines, and they wanted to 
hire more INS agents to enforce the law.
  The American Federation of Government Employees filed a complaint 
with the National Labor Relations Board saying, under their contract, 
INS could not hire more agents without renegotiating its union 
contract. Guess what. The National Labor Relations Board ruled in favor 
of the union, prohibiting the people from being hired.
  The Senator talks about a vote. I ask unanimous consent that on 
Friday morning at 10 o'clock, we have an up-or-down vote on the 
substitute I have offered with Senator Miller. That way, there will be 
no doubt about the fact we are ready to bring it to a vote at that 
point. We would like an up-or-down vote on our amendment at 10 o'clock.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, the point I want to make--and I am sorry 
I had to put our colleague in a position like that to object.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAMM. I will yield, but the point I want to make is we want an 
up-or-down vote on our amendment. This is the President's substitute, 
and the President's supporters should have a chance to speak on it. We 
have gone on for 4 weeks on this bill, not because of what supporters 
of the President have done, but because we have had amendments offered, 
probably 90 percent of that time taken up by people who do not support 
the President's position. That is where we are.
  I will be happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAMM. Yes.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, of course, we want to have a vote on 
the substitute amendment. What is the basis for denying Senators the 
normal privilege, which the Senator from Texas has exercised and 
utilized on so many occasions, to offer a second-degree amendment to 
his substitute so the Senate can work its will, dispose of it, and then 
go to an up-or-down vote?
  Mr. GRAMM. The question is a totally fair question. As I said 
earlier, people have a right to offer amendments, but the point is, 
this is the President's best effort to reach a compromise with the 
Senator and with those who oppose his proposal, and he would like to 
have an up-or-down vote on his compromise as we have written it, not as 
it would be rewritten by others. The Senator has every right to offer 
an amendment. We have every right to resist it and not let the Senator 
have a vote on it. But we would like at some point to have people vote 
yes or no on the President's proposal. That is all.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, in responding, I want the record to

[[Page S9195]]

show--and I yield myself a moment more--we are fully prepared to have 
an up-or-down vote on Senator Gramm's substitute, but after we have the 
right to offer an amendment. That is the way the Senate works. That is 
why I objected.
  Mr. GRAMM. There is the rub. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Texas. Is the 
Senator from Texas aware of the fact he is mistaken again in saying 
only 3 Federal employees out of 1.8 million were terminated, when the 
official figures show in fiscal year 2001, 8,920 Federal employees were 
terminated, and in fiscal year 2000, 8,400 Federal employees were fired 
for reasons related to poor performance? Is the Senator aware of those 
numbers?
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me respond--
  Mr. DURBIN. Let me complete my question and then I will sit down. Is 
he aware, as he continues to use the INS example at the Honolulu 
Airport, that after the ruling he referred to, they did work out 
differences with the workers and established the 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. 
graveyard shift once they worked out negotiations?
  Mr. GRAMM. Does the Senator know how long it took to work it out?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am sure the time it took for the lawsuit. It took a 
long time.
  Mr. GRAMM. While they were working it out, what if somebody brought a 
chemical weapon in to Hawaii where my kinfolk live. What if they had 
been killed?
  I am constantly capable of misstating facts and figures. I always 
tell my children: Do not get into a debate about facts, look them up. 
All I am saying is, the facts I have--and I do have as much faith in 
mine as anybody else's--say the Clinton administration found 64,340 
Federal workers to be poor performers; 434 went through the process to 
be terminated, and that can take as long as 18 months.
  Maybe it does not matter unless somebody's life is at stake. That is 
all I am saying. If somebody's life is at stake, you do not do business 
as usual. You can defend business as usual, but when it puts somebody's 
life at stake, when a man, woman, or child has their life at stake, 
business as usual is not usual. I think there is some urgency here. 
That is all I am saying. I am not trying to indict any of these work 
rules or say they are crazy. I would hate to have to run my business 
under these work rules. I would go broke. All I am saying is, when 
people's lives are at stake, there is some urgency. I yield back to the 
Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. MILLER. Madam President, how much time is remaining for our side 
of the argument?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 23\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MILLER. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I rise to speak not on the subject of the war 
against Iraq--that is for another day--but I rise to speak on the 
homeland security substitute that Senators Gramm, Thompson, and I, and 
about 40 other Senators, have sponsored that the President says he 
supports and will sign.
  We do not teach our children the lessons of Aesop's Fables as much 
anymore. The wisdom of Sesame Street and the Cat in the Hat have taken 
their place. There is one fable I learned at my mother's knee, sitting 
around an open fireplace, that I believe is pertinent to this debate on 
homeland security that has so divided this Senate along party lines.
  It goes like this: A certain man had several sons who were always 
quarreling with one another, and try as he might, he could not get them 
to live together in harmony. So he was determined to convince them of 
their folly. Bidding them fetch a bundle of sticks, he invited each in 
turn to break it across his knee. All tried and all failed.
  Then he undid the bundle and handed them the sticks one at a time, 
which they had no difficulty at all in breaking.
  There, my boys, said he. United you will be more than a match for 
your enemies, but if you quarrel and separate, your weakness will put 
you at the mercy of all those who attack you.
  That is a lesson for today. That is a lesson for the ages. That is a 
lesson for this Senate and the House, for Democrats and Republicans, 
for the executive and legislative branches of Government. I am one of 
the most junior Members of this body. I do not have the experience and 
I have not seen the number of bills most other Members have, so my 
historical perspective, admittedly, is limited. But in the short time I 
have been here, I have never seen such a clear choice as there is on 
this issue.
  For me, there are no shades of gray. It is clear cut. Why, in the 
name of homeland security, do we want to take the power away from the 
President that he possessed on 9/11? It is power Jimmy Carter had, 
power Ronald Reagan had, power the first President Bush had, and power 
Bill Clinton had. Do we really want to face the voters with that 
position, that vote written large on our foreheads like a scarlet 
letter, and even larger on a 36-inch television ad two weeks before the 
election?
  We must give the President the flexibility to respond to terrorism on 
a moment's notice. He has to be able to shift resources, including 
personnel, at the blink of an eye. When the Civil Service was created 
well over a century ago, it had a worthy goal, to create a professional 
workforce free of cronyism. Back then, it was valid. But all too often 
in Government, we pass laws to fix the problems of the moment and then 
we keep those laws on the books for years without ever following up to 
see if they are still needed.
  The truth of the matter is a solution for the 19th century is posing 
a problem for the 21st century, especially when this country is 
threatened in such a different and sinister way.
  I do not want to belabor the point about how long it takes to hire a 
person or how long it takes to fire a person. I just know it is too 
long. I also know that a Federal worker can be caught knee-walking 
drunk and he cannot be fired for 30 days, and then he has endless 
appeals. Productivity should be the name of the game, and we lose 
productivity when we have such a law. That is no way to wage a war.
  Do we not realize there is another disaster looming just around the 
corner, where American lives are going to be lost? And another one 
after that? And that those attacks against Americans and against our 
country will occur for the rest of our lives? Would anyone dare suggest 
that is not going to happen? Would anyone suggest 9/11 was some kind of 
isolated phenomenon never to happen on American soil again? Surely no 
one, even the most naive optimist, believes that. Surely no one in this 
body believes that.
  Over 60,000 terrorists worldwide have already been identified. 
Terrorist cells in some unlikely places, such as Lackawanna, NY, have 
been discovered. They are all around us, they are everywhere, and when 
these other attacks come, as certainly they will, do you not think 
Americans throughout this great land are going to look back at what 
went on at this time in the Senate? And when they do, do you not think 
some hard questions and some terrible second-guessing will take place?
  I can hear them now. The talk show lines will be clogged, and the 
blame will be heaped on this body. Why was the Senate so fixated on 
protecting jobs instead of protecting lives?
  The Senate's refusal to grant this President and future Presidents 
the same power four previous Presidents have had will haunt those who 
do so, like Marley's ghost haunted Ebenezer Scrooge. They will ask: Why 
did they put workers' rights above Americans' lives? Why did that 2002 
Senate, on the 1-year anniversary of 9/11, with malice and forethought, 
deliberately weaken the powers of the President in time of war? And 
then, why did this Senate, in all its vainglory, rear back and deliver 
the ultimate slap in the face of the President by not even giving him 
the decency to have an up-or-down vote on his own proposal? This is 
unworthy of this great body. It is demeaning, ugly, and over the top.

  What were they thinking of, they will ask? What could have possessed 
them? Do not ask then for whom the bell tolls. It will toll for us.
  Few leaders have understood the lessons of history as well as Winston 
Churchill because he was not only a soldier and a politician, but he 
was also a Nobel Prize-winning historian. Perhaps then at this time we 
should remember the question Churchill framed to the world when he made 
that famous

[[Page S9196]]

Iron Curtain speech at Fulton, MO, at Westminster College in 1946. He 
first reminded the audience:

       War and tyranny remain the great enemies of mankind.

  Then he asked this question:

       Do we not understand what war means to the ordinary person? 
     Can you not grasp its horror?

  Some of the remarks earlier this morning on this floor reminded me of 
something else about that speech and its aftermath. Churchill, being so 
blunt, did not go over very well. The American media and others did not 
want to hear that kind of talk. They called Winston Churchill a 
warmonger, and even the usually gutsy Harry Truman denied knowing in 
advance what was in the speech and even suggested that Churchill should 
not give it.
  The old soldier went on and said some other very sensible and 
thought-provoking things in that speech, like war used to be squalid 
and glorious, but now war is only squalid.
  I want to repeat that line that is at the heart of what I want to say 
today: Do we not understand what war means to the ordinary person? Can 
we not grasp its horror? Has scoring points with some labor boss become 
more important than the safety of our citizens? Can you not grasp its 
horror?
  I wonder if you would feel the same way if the Golden Gate Bridge was 
brought down and 95 cars plunged into the San Francisco Bay. Could we 
then not grasp its horror? Would we then in the name of homeland 
security still want to take powers away from the President?
  Or would you feel the same way if that beautiful little city of New 
Roads, LA, on the False River, with the Spanish moss dangling on those 
live oaks, were to go up in a mushroom cloud? Could you then not grasp 
its horror?
  We rev up our emotions so easily to fight superhighways from leveling 
ethnic neighborhoods. So it would seem to me we should be able to get 
up the same kind of rage when terrorists want to level entire cities 
such as Baltimore or Atlanta or the manicured mansions of Newport, RI. 
If those beautiful cities were the target of a terrorist attack, could 
you then not grasp its horror? Or the Space Needle in Seattle, filled 
with tourists, crashing to the ground. Or a smallpox epidemic, in days, 
wiping out completely the Twin Cities of Minnesota or spreading across 
the forest plains of South Dakota. From the great Atlantic Ocean to the 
wide Pacific shore, from the Blue Ridge of Tennessee to Beacon Hill in 
Massachusetts, I guarantee then the country would grasp that war is 
horror. And as sure as night follows the day, when catastrophes occur, 
the Senate, us, we will be held accountable if we fail to give the 
President the tools to do his job.

  Why are people back home always ahead of the politicians? Because 
most politicians, most at our level, do not get out among them anymore. 
We think we do. And some of us do. A town hall meeting here, a senior 
center there, a focus group or two, but we don't really. We do not talk 
to real people anymore. We are too busy in that room dialing up 
dollars. The only horror we can grasp from that experience is some fat 
cat telling us that he is already maxed out.
  Why are we even in this debate? How will it be recorded in years to 
come when the historians write their accounts of the days of a Senate 
in September of 2002? How will our actions be judged by the people who 
go to the polls this year on November 5? Frankly, I think it will be 
one of our sorriest chapters, certainly the worst time in my short time 
here, a chapter where special interests so brazenly triumphed national 
interests.
  Herodotus, who lived in Athens in the 4th century B.C., is usually 
called the father of history. He wrote about the Persian wars, and 
about the Battle of Marathon, which later historians called the seminal 
event in the history of freedom. Herodotus wrote that the Persians lost 
that battle, even though their army was bigger and better equipped, 
because the Persians committed the sin of hubris; hubris, best defined 
as outrageous arrogance. If you study the lessons of history, 
especially the lessons of the history of freedom, you will find that 
hubris would time and time again bring down many other powerful 
civilizations.
  Hubris, outrageous arrogance, is so prevalent in this debate. The 
hubris of some labor bosses and their purchased partridges in a pear 
tree. Outrageous arrogance. What else can you call it when the 
interests of the few are put above the welfare of the whole country?
  For the rest of our lives, we will have to live with what we do on 
this issue. Will we choose to protect the special interests or will we 
choose to protect the lives of Americans? Will we hog-tie the hands of 
our President or give him the same unfettered flexibility other 
Presidents have had before him? Do not let this be one of those votes 
you will look back on and ask yourselves for the rest of your lives, 
what was I thinking? For as we are reminded in the ``Rubaiyat'' of Omar 
Khayyam: The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on. All your 
piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all your 
tears wash out a word of it.
  I ask one last time, do we not understand what war means to the 
ordinary person? Can we not grasp its horror?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield myself up to 5 minutes from 
my time.
  I will answer the question the Senator from Georgia has raised. Of 
course we understand what war means to our country and average 
citizens. That is why our committee has labored so long and so hard to 
bring forth this bill creating a Department of Homeland Security, 
consulting with Members on both sides, working with the White House, to 
have what is, for the most part, a bipartisan piece of legislation.
  Senators have spoken this morning about the Senate being divided on 
this bill. The fact is, the Senate is not divided on this bill. The 
Gramm-Miller substitute, by Senator Gramm's own reckoning, is 95 
percent the same as our Senate Governmental Affairs Committee bill. And 
it ought to be. We have a common ground desire to go ahead and create a 
Department of Homeland Security.
  We have a few areas we disagree on, the most significant of which, 
the most controversial of which, is the one that the Senator from 
Georgia has focused on. But I cannot let stand the question that 
somehow the committee bill, supported by nine Democrats and three 
Republicans--Senator Stevens, Senator Voinovich, Senator Collins--
somehow puts the protection of Federal workers ahead of national 
security. We have a different way we have tried to achieve fairness for 
Federal workers. We can debate that. There is a compromise achieved by 
Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Chafee, Senator Breaux, that we will have a 
chance to vote on, the amendment we want to put on to this bill. 
However, there has been so much misstatement and mythology that has no 
relationship to reality.
  Let me state it clearly, national security always must trump and 
prevail over any other aspect of law in the cases that are described. 
Let me be very specific why I say that. I will quote the law, United 
States Code, Title 5, collective bargaining law, section 7106(a)(2)(A) 
which says, first:

       Nothing in a collective-bargaining law shall effect the 
     authority of any management official of any agency in 
     accordance with applicable laws to assign and direct 
     employees in the agency.

  Second, section 7106(a)(2)(B) says:

       Collective bargaining shall not effect managers' authority 
     to assign work and determine the personnel by which agency 
     operations shall be conducted.

  This is the directly relevant statute section of law which will 
continue to prevail and expresses the clear desire--I presume the 
desire of every Member of the Senate--to give maximum authority, 
latitude, to managers at a time of national emergency; section 
7106(a)(2)(D) of the United States Code, Title 5, provides that 
collective bargaining shall not affect the authority of managers ``to 
take whatever actions may be necessary to carry out the agency mission 
during emergencies.''
  In an emergency situation, the agency has statutory authority to act 
immediately. It does not have to take any time to collectively bargain. 
The agency actually has authority to act, even if a collective 
bargaining agreement would ordinarily require some other course of 
action. All the agency head has to do is to invoke a national 
emergency.

[[Page S9197]]

  Therefore, the claims we have heard in the Senate today about how 
union contracts tie the hands of managers with ``silly union work 
rules'' and about how managers cannot order employees to do what is 
necessary to protect the security of the American people in an 
emergency are simply not true.
  In a Federal agency, there is no such thing as a union work rule that 
impairs a managers' authority to assign work, to direct employees, or 
to take whatever action that manager deems necessary in an 
emergency. That is the law. That is not my opinion; that is United 
States Code Title 5. When lives are at stake in the kinds of 
circumstances the Senator from Georgia has described, a Federal manager 
can impose any changes in assignments immediately, without dealing with 
unions at all. And the unions get to bargain over ways, if they choose 
to, to affect the impact of those decisions long after the fact.

  So we have some disagreements about the specific wording of civil 
service protections, management flexibility, collective bargaining 
rights. But, please, make no mistake about it, in a case of national 
emergency, the law of the United States, unchanged by the committee's 
proposal, makes clear that national security prevails over any other 
section of the law and over any provision of a collective bargaining 
agreement.
  I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, are we going back and forth? We do not 
have to, but we normally have.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. In this case, because I have used very little time, I 
want to hold it to allow the Senators from Maryland both to have the 
chance to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains on either 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 32 minutes. 
The Senator from Texas has 7 minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. So there are 7 minutes on the other side and 32 minutes 
left with the Senator from Connecticut?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. So I yield up to 10 minutes--let's say I yield up to 
20 minutes for both Senators from Maryland as they wish to use that 
time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I know others are 
anxious to speak.
  Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Gramm-Miller amendment. 
I rise to support the efforts of Senator Joe Lieberman to create a 
framework for homeland security. I had hoped, when we were working on 
this legislation, we were not going to be Democrats or Republicans, we 
were going to be the red, white, and blue party. And I really deeply 
regret that this argument has been so deeply politicized.
  I am here to stand up to protect America and vote for a Department of 
Homeland Security. But I also have to stand up for those who are 
protecting the United States of America, our brave, our gallant Federal 
employees who are out there every day on the front line wanting to do 
their job, whether they are Customs workers, in the Coast Guard, the 
FBI, or the G men at the Department of Treasury, trying to do their 
job. I resent that my standing up for them, to have their 
constitutional right to organize, have freedom of assembly, would be 
called arrogant and hubris.
  I listened to an argument that said: Battle? You don't know about it.
  You are exactly right. I have never gone into battle. I do not bear 
the permanent wounds of war like some of our dear colleagues, names 
such as Dole and Inouye. But I do know this. When we are going to send 
people into battle, I know we are going to think long and hard about 
it, because I know what it means. When I stand up for America, I also 
want to stand up, not for a Department, but for what America believes 
in.
  Why was it OK to have a union in Poland that brought down the whole 
Communist empire and not to have a union here?
  When our firefighters ran up into that burning building at the World 
Trade Center nobody asked if they were in the union. They didn't look 
at their clock and wonder if they were working to the rule.
  When our emergency workers from Maryland dashed over to be part of 
the mutual aid at the Pentagon, they were mission driven. They weren't 
there because they were union members--Oops. I am wrong. They were 
there because they were union members. They belonged to a union. They 
belonged to a union called the United States of America. That is the 
union that they belong to, and that is the union they put first.
  Why are we abusing them as if they are the enemy? I hope we will 
start to be as hard on terrorists as we are on these union members. It 
has been over 1 year--where is Bin Laden? We haven't found Bin Laden, 
but we are going to nitpick over whether or not you have a union.
  We had an anthrax killer who attacked the Senate and used the post 
office as a weapon. I have Marylanders dead and I have Marylanders 
permanently ill because of the anthrax killer. Let's make sure that our 
workers can go out and do the manhunt they need to do, or to do the 
money hunt for those who fund them. Let's not worry about whether they 
belong to a union or they don't. They don't hide behind the union not 
to do their job. But I tell you, there are those hiding behind a right-
wing agenda to get rid of unions in this country or to make unions the 
problem.
  The words ``labor boss,'' what do they mean? It is OK to be a CEO and 
have more perks than a potentate--that is OK, we can have the imperial 
CEO. But when people organize, they are called labor bosses, as though 
somehow or another it is the goon squad? I really resent that. I resent 
that for my customs workers. I resent it for the postal workers after 
what happened at Brentwood. The postal workers didn't sit down and go 
on strike because we failed to protect them. They showed up every day, 
and because they showed up every day and did their job, as I say, two 
are dead and many are sick. And we are sick at heart because it 
happened to them.

  So I am kind of tired of this. I am tired of the politicization of 
the process. I am tired of the cynical manipulation of this process. I 
feel as though I am being set up. If we stand up for the workers, we 
are somehow or another slowing down the debate on homeland security.
  This national leader, Joe Lieberman, the Senator from Connecticut, 
has been working on homeland security and an agency to do it long 
before the White House has. Just like he was calling for a national 
commission to look at what went wrong on September 11 long before the 
White House. We have been ahead of the White House, but now we are 
going to work with the White House.
  I think we have to defeat the Gramm-Miller amendment--put that aside 
and no hard feelings. I think we have to then move on to the Lieberman 
bill, pass it expeditiously to show the world we can organize and 
mobilize to protect America, and then let's get on to the other debate 
related to Iraq. And then let's also get back on another debate, such 
as what is happened to the economy.
  The stock market has plummeted. It is about as bad as it was when 
Gerald Ford was President, in 1974. We do not want to go there again 
and then need a Democrat to bail us out--or maybe we will need a 
Democrat to bail us out, but I don't want to go there. I want to stand 
up for this country, but I want to stand up for the people who built 
this country, and it is the trade union movement. If we don't start 
protecting the protectors, to make sure they have the right equipment, 
the right training, and also have the right legislative framework where 
they can have their constitutional rights, then we have other issues.
  I want to go back to the bill Joe Lieberman is presenting. I think it 
is an excellent framework. I will go back to being part of the red, 
white, and blue party. Let's put the politics of hard feelings behind 
us, let's get Iraq together, and let's show America we can govern, and 
let's show the bullies of the world we are going to take them on.
  God bless the Federal employees who stand sentry every day to protect 
America.

[[Page S9198]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I rise, first of all, to commend the 
very able chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut, for the very fine work he has done on this legislation, 
particularly on this issue of Federal employees, and the care and 
sensitivity with which he has struck the balance.
  Obviously, on the one hand we have national security concerns. But as 
the Senator indicated in the quotes he took right from the legislation, 
the actual words of the legislation, the flexibility that is necessary 
to deal with national security questions or emergency situations is 
contained in this legislation. Those would be stripped out by the 
amendment. The Gramm-Miller proposal would then move the balance. 
Really, it would eliminate the balance. It would provide no significant 
or meaningful protections for the Federal employees.
  In one sense it raises the question: What is the nature of the 
society we are trying to protect? What is the nature of the society we 
are trying to protect? How far are we prepared to go in denying the 
essential freedoms and essential protections in the name of national 
security? Not in the reality of national security because the Senator 
from Connecticut has protected that reality.
  Their proposal would give unfettered authority to the Executive in 
dealing with their employees--the very employees we have to draw upon 
to protect the Nation and to respond to the challenges we face.
  I want to assert in unequivocal terms that, in my judgment, our 
Federal employees are loyal and committed workers who are dedicated to 
providing a high level of service. Legislation creating the new 
Department of Homeland Security should protect the rights of those 
workers to engage in collective bargaining and to protect their rights 
under the current civil service system unless critical questions of 
national security or emergency are presented. And those questions have 
been dealt with carefully, skillfully, and thoughtfully by the able 
Senator from Connecticut. I commend him for those efforts.
  I don't understand why some are engaged in beating up on the Federal 
employees. Why is this happening? Have the terrorist strikes driven 
some to this point? Do they not recall the Federal office building in 
Oklahoma that was blown up by a terrorist, albeit a domestic terrorist? 
Do they not recall that, and those dedicated lives that were lost? 
People all across the country who were working in similar office 
buildings went back in the next morning to do their job on behalf of 
the country to serve the public interest--all across America--despite 
the fact that some of their colleagues had just suffered this grievous 
blow.
  Why do we have this assault taking place? The Federal managers have 
much of this flexibility. The legislation has the emergency flexibility 
in it. The civil service law was originally put in place to protect 
against politicizing the public service. It has been adjusted and 
amended over the years.
  These arguments that it impedes productivity have been addressed 
again and again by the chairman's committee. Adjustments have been made 
in the light of changing circumstances. But no one has ever come before 
the committee and said we ought to take away all of those protections 
which have given us a public service with some integrity to it, and 
which is not subject to political whim.
  How are you going to call upon people to serve above and beyond the 
basic requirements of their job description if you do not treat them 
with some dignity and respect?
  I don't know. Some around here may find that they draw the best out 
of those who work for them by sort of beating up on them; that if you 
are sort of whipping them all the time and driving them without any 
protections, completely at your whim, that enables you to bring out of 
them the best response. That has never been my experience. I don't know 
of any labor-management text or treatises by noted experts in the field 
who say that is the best way to get a stellar performance out of your 
workers. I haven't seen that treatise yet. In fact, the ones I have 
looked at say that is exactly the wrong thing to do if you want to draw 
out a quality and stellar performance from your workers.
  There are a lot of very dedicated employees across the country. I 
think employee rights and the civil service protections which we have 
are essential to the effective workings of our Government.
  Some come and try to portray this as some special interest. The 
public interest is served by having these arrangements because those 
arrangements enable us to get better people into the public service, 
and to draw on them and their full capabilities.
  I rise in very strong opposition to the provisions in this amendment 
that have been offered by Senator Gramm and Senator Miller which would 
strip away from our Federal employees these important collective 
bargaining rights and these important civil service protections. In my 
judgment, given the balance which the chairman has already struck on 
important national security questions, to do what this amendment does--
taking away those bargaining rights and those civil service 
protections--will harm our national security, not help our national 
security. It will harm our national security.
  For that reason, I very strongly oppose the provisions that are 
contained in this amendment that deal with our committed and dedicated 
Federal employees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my colleagues from Maryland, 
Senators Mikulski and Sarbanes, for their very eloquent and passionate 
and compassionate statements. I appreciate the way Senator Sarbanes and 
Senator Mikulski talked about the impulse of the people who are working 
for the Federal Government.
  I cited the law before which talked about the primary status of 
national security. But the people, the loyal patriotic Americans, does 
anybody really think in a case of national emergency they are going to 
be citing subsections of the collective bargaining agreement? They are 
going to do what any American did. In fact, that is what they did on 
September 11.
  I was in a meeting of a group of Federal employees who happened to be 
from FEMA. They rushed from where they were to the Pentagon. A whole 
group of them were flown up to New York. They worked long hours. They 
got very little sleep for days and days. Obviously, the firefighters in 
New York are unionized. It is a remarkable story. I don't remember the 
exact number. I talked to a battalion commander of a unit of New York 
firefighters a couple of weeks ago. He said on September 11, when they 
heard about the planes hitting the World Trade Center, several hundred 
firefighters who were off duty just rushed to the scene to help. They 
weren't thinking about a collective bargaining agreement. They were 
thinking about America and their duty. These are public servants in the 
best meaning of the term.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. SARBANES. Given this display of dedication on the part of these 
public employees, why now all of a sudden are we seeking to take away 
from them these basic rights and protections?
  If someone came in and said what a dismal performance we have, and, 
therefore, we ought to give the management more leeway to sort of beat 
on these people or something of that sort, I don't know that I would 
buy that argument. But at least it would be something of an argument.
  Instead, you have this exemplary performance, this manifestation of 
real dedication. And despite that, some now are coming along and, in 
effect, wanting to beat on people who have behaved in the most 
extraordinary, dedicated, and selfless fashion.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator from Maryland is absolutely right. There 
is no justification for it. At some level, it is not only wrong, it is 
offensive. And I thank the Senator for his substantial contribution to 
this debate.
  May I ask the Chair how much time is remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I am very pleased to see in the 
Chamber my friend from Hawaii, Senator

[[Page S9199]]

Akaka, a very significant member of our committee, who has contributed 
substantially, in so many ways, to our legislation that came out of 
committee. I yield the Senator up to 10 minutes for his statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Senator from Connecticut.
  Madam President. I rise to address the amendment offered by Senators 
Gramm and Miller as it relates to whistleblower protections. Contrary 
to press accounts, the Gramm-Miller amendment, as well as the House-
passed bill and the President's initial bill, do nothing--do nothing--
to protect whistleblowers. As Congress debates the creation of the new 
Department of Homeland Security, we must remember the role that 
whistleblowers play in protecting this great Nation. We commend the 
courage of FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley, who blew the whistle on the 
serious institutional problems at the FBI which impacted the agency's 
ability to effectively investigate and prevent terrorism. We commend 
Federal Border Patrol Agents Mark Hall and Bob Lindemann, who risked 
their careers by alerting Congress to Border Patrol and INS policies 
that compromised the security of our borders.
  Their actions alerted us to flaws in the current system and allow us 
to fix such problems in order to have a more secure Nation. Because 
whistleblowers play such an important role in protecting our country, 
we must do our part to protect them from retaliation for disclosing 
Government waste, fraud, and abuse. The Lieberman substitute is the 
only amendment before us that provides real whistleblower protection.
  During the Committee on Governmental Affairs hearings on the creation 
of the proposed Homeland Security Department, I asked Governor Tom 
Ridge about whistleblower protections for Federal employees in the 
Department of Homeland Security. He said that all employees in the new 
Department would have whistleblower protections because the bill would 
require the new personnel system to be grounded in the public 
employment principles of merit and fitness.
  However, requiring that a human resources system be grounded in the 
public employment principles does not equate to whistleblower 
protection. Congress has worked hard, and continues to work, to provide 
real whistleblower protection to Federal employees. Claiming that 
whistleblower protection will be provided based on such principles does 
nothing to assure Federal employees of their rights and protections or 
assure Congress that their bipartisan efforts on behalf of 
whistleblowers would not be frustrated.
  Adding to my concern over the lack of protections afforded to 
employees in the new Department, H.R. 5005 and the amendment offered by 
Senators Gramm and Miller fail to provide the same level of 
whistleblower protection that Federal employees have in most Federal 
agencies. Although the House bill and the Gramm-Miller amendment 
allegedly maintain whistleblower protections and other merit system 
principles for employees of the new Department, both allow the 
Secretary to waive due process procedures and the remedies an employee 
needs to assert those rights.
  The Gramm-Miller amendment bars the Secretary from waiving the 
applicability of several chapters of title 5 covering a variety of 
civil service issues. The list of nonwaivable chapters conspicuously 
fails to include protections against unwarranted disciplinary actions 
and performance appraisals, access to third party investigations by the 
Office of Special Counsel, or independent hearings at the Merit Systems 
Protection Board. Those agencies provide vital third party review and 
transparent enforcement for whistleblower and other merit system 
rights.
  When Federal employees allege that they have been subject to a 
prohibited personnel practice, including violations of the 
Whistleblower Protection Act, OSC has authority to receive and 
investigate such allegations. If the special counsel finds reasonable 
grounds to believe that a violation has occurred and corrective action 
is required, she must report the determination to the MSPB, the 
affected agency, and the Office of Personnel Management, OPM. If the 
agency fails to act to correct the prohibited personnel practice, the 
special counsel may petition the MSPB for corrective action.
  Since these procedures are not specifically included in H.R. 5005, it 
is doubtful that the protections afforded to other employees are 
available to Homeland Security employees.
  In 1995, Congress gave wide latitude to the Federal Aviation 
Administration to create its own personnel system. Although this system 
was to afford whistleblower protections, the Justice Department found 
that Congress incorporated only selected provisions of title 5 into the 
FAA personnel management system, thus leaving OSC without authority to 
investigate or otherwise pursue cases of whistleblower retaliation 
alleged by FAA employees.
  The reasoning of the Justice Department is supported by Supreme Court 
precedent, which states that:

       [w]here Congress explicitly enumerates certain exceptions 
     to a general prohibition, additional exceptions are not to be 
     implied.

  Moreover, Congress has repeatedly demonstrated that if its intention 
is to exempt certain entities generally from title 5, but to apply the 
substantive whistleblower protections and all the ancillary enforcement 
procedures, it knows how to do so unambiguously. For example, when 
Congress applied only selected provisions of title 5 to the Panama 
Canal Commission, it provided for application of the whistleblower 
protection provisions as follows:

       Section 2302(b)(8) (relating to whistleblower protection) 
     and all provisions of Title 5 relating to the administration 
     or enforcement or any other aspect thereof, as identified in 
     regulations prescribed by the Commission in consultation with 
     the Office of Personnel Management.

  It is fair to conclude that whistleblowers in the new Department do 
not have the same protections as other employees in the Federal 
Government due to the absence of any similar reference to the 
whistleblower protection enforcement provisions of title 5 in the House 
bill or in the Gramm-Miller amendment.
  The Lieberman substitute, however, maintains all of the title 5 
protections for whistleblowers to ensure that they have the needed 
protection to come forward and alert us to serious problems in the 
Federal Government that can hamper our efforts to secure our homeland. 
It also ensures the continuation of union representation which allows 
third party arbitration for whistleblowers. The Lieberman substitute 
also contains two provisions, sponsored by myself and Senator Levin, 
which enhance the protections afforded to Federal employees.
  The Akaka-Levin provisions grandfather the whistleblower rights of 
employees transferred into the new Department and provide full 
whistleblower protections for TSA baggage screeners. Whistleblower 
protections for TSA employees had unanimous bipartisan support from the 
Governmental Affairs Committee and the provision mirrors the language 
of S. 2686 which was introduced by Senator Grassley. Despite such 
widespread support, the Gramm-Miller ``compromise'' amendment does not 
include this bipartisan protection for whistleblowers.
  Under the terms of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act that 
we passed last year, the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security 
has the authority to employ, terminate, and fix the conditions of 
employment for the Federal screening workforce while the rest of the 
employees of the Transportation Security Agency are governed by the 
personnel system established by the Federal Aviation Administration.
  While the FAA personnel system now provides full whistleblower 
protection to employees, TSA security screeners are denied such 
protection. In May, TSA and OSC reached an agreement to provide limited 
whistleblower protection to TSA baggage screeners. Under this 
nonstatutory agreement, security screeners were not afforded appeal 
rights. However, the right to appeal to an independent third party is a 
necessary part of providing real whistleblower protection. Such 
protection is necessary to ensure that screeners feel secure in coming 
forward with information of government waste, fraud, and actions that 
are dangerous to public health and safety.
  Recognizing the need for full whistleblower rights, Congress resolved 
to provide OSC enforcement authority and

[[Page S9200]]

full whistleblower rights to FAA employees in 2000.
  I urge my colleagues to once again protect our Federal whisleblowers 
by providing full and explicit whistleblower protection to employees in 
the Department of Homeland Security. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
Gramm-Miller amendment and support the Lieberman substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, could the Chair indicate how much 
time is remaining on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute to the Senator from Connecticut, 
and 7 minutes to the Senator from Texas.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, let me conclude in the moment I have 
remaining. I have the feeling this will not be the last moment I or 
other Members will have to discuss the Graham-Miller substitute or the 
question of protections for Federal workers.
  There is a significant disagreement about the protections for 
homeland security workers. I do think, as we talk about the Nelson-
Chafee-Breaux compromise, which I support, that it will be seen that it 
not only gives some protection to Federal workers, particularly those 
who are currently unionized and will be transferred to the new 
building, but it leaves the President with the last word on matters of 
national security. Let not the debate on that matter obscure the fact 
that, as Senator Gramm himself has said, 95 percent of his substitute 
is the same as our committee bill. So let's settle the small point of 
disagreement and get the rest that we agree on done.
  I believe my time has expired.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have a unanimous consent request which I 
have informed the minority I am going to propound at this time. Senator 
Nelson has been designated as Senator Daschle's designee. I ask 
unanimous consent that following my unanimous consent request--and I 
understand there will be an objection--Senator Nelson be recognized to 
offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________