[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 125 (Monday, September 30, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9587-S9589]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HOMELAND SECURITY

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, as we enter our 5th week of 
debate on this Senate floor on the homeland security bill, I rise today 
to ponder exactly where we have been, and, perhaps much more 
importantly, where we are going.
  In recent weeks, Democrats and Republicans have made little progress 
on the bill. Some have identified particular provisions they would like 
to have changed; some have not. The President offered his own proposal 
for consideration, and, as the Record will reflect, the Senate obliged 
him by allowing it to come to the floor for consideration.
  My good friends, Senator Gramm of Texas and Senator Miller of 
Georgia, are championing the President's bill. He could have no two 
more noble or respected Senators as his gatekeepers.
  Let me describe for you what this bill does. It will establish a new 
Federal

[[Page S9588]]

Department, the largest Government reorganization since the 
establishment of the Department of Defense. It will affect 170,000 
Federal employees and each and every American. It will restructure 
existing agencies and create new ones. It will relocate and reclassify 
employees and will establish the largest reaching intelligence-
gathering operation in the history of civilization.
  Is this the kind of legislation that Congress should approve blindly? 
Obviously not.
  Some would have you believe that anyone who wants to make any 
change--no matter how slight--to this massive legislation is an 
opponent of the President.
  I want to make a slight change to this bill, one I believe is 
supported by a majority of the Senate, but that does not make me an 
opponent, nor does my amendment make anyone an opponent. I support the 
President. I want to see him achieve his goal of establishing this new 
Federal bureaucracy.
  What I do not support is sacrificing our constitutional 
responsibility for oversight of not just the Department, once it is 
established, but of the effort to create the Department in the first 
place.
  Passing this bill comes down to one unresolved issue: the method of 
resolving differences as they pertain to labor-management in the new 
Department of Homeland Security.
  I have joined together with my colleagues, Senator John Breaux and 
Senator Lincoln Chafee, to put forth a compromise that has the support 
of a majority of the Senators, and should be embraced as a victory, not 
demagoged as a special interest protectionist measure.
  The President's bill, the Gramm-Miller bill, does not have enough 
votes to pass, and it does not have enough votes to invoke cloture. The 
Lieberman bill does not have enough votes to pass, and it has not had 
enough votes to invoke cloture.
  Without becoming unnecessarily bogged down with Senate procedure, it 
is important to point out that cloture means to shut off debate and a 
majority to pass a piece of legislation under these circumstances. Now, 
my amendment has enough to pass, but it does not have enough to shut 
off cloture. If my amendment were passed and passed on the Gramm-Miller 
bill, I believe that the bill would then have enough not only to shut 
off cloture but pass. That is what we are really trying to do.
  Our compromise would give the President the authority he needs to 
hire and fire, promote or demote employees in the new Department. 
Indeed, it gives him exactly the authority he sought when Homeland 
Security Director Tom Ridge wrote the chairman of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee in early September.
  I have here for everyone to see--even those watching through the 
electronic eye--Governor Ridge's comments to Senator Lieberman. I will 
quote in part, but I can quote before or after. There is some question 
about the context of this particular legislation. It was in conjunction 
with explaining what the White House was interested in in terms of the 
flexibility that management would require over labor under this new 
agency. He said:

       Senator, the President seeks for this new department the 
     same management prerogatives that Congress has provided other 
     departments and agencies throughout the executive branch. For 
     example--

  Then he identifies a couple of other processes that are fairly 
innocuous. Then he says, relating to personnel flexibility:

       Personnel flexibility is currently enjoyed by the Federal 
     Aviation Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, and 
     the Transportation Security Administration.

  We initially tried to embody the Federal Aviation Administration in 
our amendment, but it was ruled not to be germane. So we did the next 
obvious thing; we went to the Internal Revenue Service, which lays out 
under existing law--which made it germane--the nature of the 
flexibility, that personnel flexibility to which Governor Ridge had 
referred. We thought that would, in fact, do it.
  Now, much to our surprise, that apparently does not do it because 
they have suggested that this is a nonstarter. It seemed to be starting 
back in September--the third of September--but it seems to be a 
nonstarter today. I don't know what has changed in that timeframe. My 
good friend, Senator Gramm, said that everybody is entitled to their 
own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts. I 
think this is a set of facts that we have before us. It is hard to 
believe that there would be more than one opinion about what Governor 
Ridge had to say. There should be no more than one opinion about what 
his letter purported to deal with. So I think this is one set of facts, 
with one opinion. It is possible to mischaracterize facts, but I don't 
think there is any way to mischaracterize the plain and simple language 
when he said ``the same management prerogatives.'' He didn't say 
``almost the same,'' or ``slightly different''; he said ``the same 
management prerogatives.''
  I said the other day that there are times on this floor when you find 
out you are having a disagreement and you cannot understand why it is a 
disagreement; you are not sure what it is about, and you feel like 
Lewis Carroll must have felt when he wrote Alice in Wonderland. I have 
not seen the cheshire cat, but when winning is described as winning in 
the media about this issue, I feel as if we are in Alice in Wonderland.

  Let me also suggest that there have been some news reports that I 
made reference to from the past few days that might shed some light on 
this situation. On Friday, Paul Light, of the respected Brookings 
Institution, told the Chicago Tribune that the differences between the 
two sides in this fight--he calls it a ``fight''--are relatively minor 
and that Democrats have already given the President almost everything 
he requested. I think Senator Lieberman parenthetically has said he has 
given 95 percent. We have been looking for a way to close the gap. I 
quote from his story:

       I don't think the answer's in the legislation. I think it 
     is a little bit about Iraq and a little bit about the 
     election.

  Mr. Light said the President should declare victory and move on. He 
said:

       Any President in history would celebrate the enormity of 
     consensus that exists in Congress right now. The President 
     has gotten 95 percent of what he wants.

  I think it is closer to 99; obviously, it is not 100. Today's issue 
of Roll Call includes a news story and a column in which some 
Republican leaders outline a strategy to use the homeland security 
issue in the coming elections.
  Mark Preston, a very able reporter from this respected publication, 
wrote:

       A disagreement over key labor issues in the homeland 
     legislation might force this bill to be shelved until after 
     November.

  Mr. Preston quotes my good friend from Pennsylvania, the chairman of 
the Republican conference, Senator Santorum, as saying:

       There are issues not being acted upon here, and they would 
     certainly be issues of great importance to the American 
     people and therefore be of very great importance to a 
     campaign.

  Madam President, they are very important to the American people, and 
no more important for us to do today and tomorrow is to deal with 
national security as it relates to the American people, and put aside 
partisan politics, put aside this election and electioneering and 
resolve the differences and close the difference between 95 percent and 
100 percent. The differences are, in fact, I think, as Mr. Light said, 
very small.
  Accusations of obstructionism seem to be aimed at securing a campaign 
wedge, and what we really need to do is move away from obstructionism 
to constructionism. We can be constructive in developing this 
particular approach. There are some other issues besides the 
flexibility issue, and we thought we had pretty much closed the gap 
there as well.
  The Morella amendment, as it was introduced in the House, relates to 
the question of collective bargaining. What this particular amendment 
does is go back and have Morella included in the amendment as it was 
introduced in the House. It may not be exactly what was requested, but 
we have suggested that if there are some particular questions or some 
particular interests in adding some language that would make this 
better, we are entirely interested in doing that.
  The truth is that we have not had that opportunity to try to bring 
that about. We met Thursday, we met Friday, and we met today. I think 
it is time for us to stop meeting and time for us to find a way to 
solve the issue.

[[Page S9589]]

We are beyond meeting, I believe, when it comes to this particular 
amendment. Flexibility is important and making sure that what we do in 
terms of this legislation is that we not adversely impact job security 
for national security, and certainly not unintentionally.
  The White House has made it clear they have no plans to go in and 
make major wholesale changes. I take them at their word. I think if 
that is the case--and I take them at their word--then we ought to find, 
if not this language, some language that will permit us to close the 
gap to move this forward. If, in fact, it is everybody's plan to 
achieve a result here, then I think we can achieve one.
  I truly believe it is important to the national interest to be able 
to deal with the personnel flexibility of the President. There is no 
question he needs to have the capacity to hire and fire, to promote and 
demote, and do what is in the best interests. There is no question 
about that. And adding that there be some requirement regarding the 
changing of authority or the changing of position in mission of the 
personnel is a slight adjustment. It certainly is not any kind of major 
intrusion on the Presidential authority.
  To include the Morella language, in terms of flexibility, simply adds 
to that. I hope we will be able to move beyond meetings to closing the 
gap, bridging this debate so it brings about the best result that we 
can, not simply for the White House but for the people of this great 
country. This should not be about Republicans or Democrats. It should 
not be about the legislative branch or the executive branch. It ought 
to be about what is in the best interest, the national interest of our 
people, and for those who share the same desire for freedom and are 
struggling to achieve it in other parts of the world.

  We have a great responsibility to the American people, but we also 
have a responsibility that is now being questioned and challenged 
around the world. One of the best ways for us to begin to resolve these 
issues is to take care of business at home. I cannot think of a better 
way than to adopt this amendment so we can adopt the Gramm-Miller 
proposal and move forward for national defense and our own homeland 
security.
  Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________