[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 126 (Tuesday, October 1, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9681-S9683]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HOMELAND SECURITY

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is important for us to understand where 
we are on the homeland security bill. This is, obviously, a very 
important bill for the President. The President has outlined 
extensively his plan of organizing this agency.
  The one thing he has asked is that he be given an agency that is 
workable. The distinguished majority leader has pointed out there have 
been a number of cloture votes and we have not gotten cloture, so by 
that he suggests that somehow this side of the aisle is the problem.
  I believe it was June of this year that the majority leader promised 
he would not fill up the tree. For those who may be listening at home, 
that is a means of adding a number of amendments so that the other side 
cannot offer any amendments for a vote. Well, they filled up the tree 
to keep the President from getting an up-or-down vote on his proposal. 
As a result, we have opposed cloture because it would have prevented us 
from getting to the President's proposal.
  If we get to the President's proposal--and I hope we will--the 
majority leader may have the votes to defeat it. But I think, since we 
are dealing with this subject in wartime, where we need to reorganize 
Government to make it flexible, to make it responsive, to make it 
effective in defending the homeland, we ought to give the Commander in 
Chief at least a vote on his proposal.

[[Page S9682]]

  I believe my colleagues who have been working on the bipartisan bill 
that reflects the President's proposals have taken some 25 different 
amendments to accommodate the interests of Congress and various bodies. 
The distinguished junior Senator from Georgia and the senior Senator 
from Texas have worked with the Senator from Tennessee on this measure. 
They have gotten to the point where they have made compromises. It 
comes down to the point where the President believes, and most of us on 
this side agree, that he could not manage the Department effectively if 
his hands were tied. Whether my colleagues want to vote on it or not, I 
think it makes sense, out of common courtesy, if nothing else, to give 
the Commander in Chief an up-or-down vote on his proposal.
  As has been pointed out, the Senate bill does not include the 
managerial flexibilities the President needs to run the Department. His 
representative, Dr. Falkenrath, stated we think the bill, as reported 
by the Governmental Affairs Committee, would create an extremely rigid 
bureaucracy. There would be a huge gap between the responsibilities of 
the Secretary to integrate the units as to what it says in article 102 
and actually do that in practice.
  What it means is we set up a new Homeland Security Department that is 
supposed to be fast and responsive, assimilate the information that 
comes in from all the varying intelligence sources, and then develop an 
appropriate response. Unfortunately, too many elements of the 
Governmental Affairs bill tie the President's hands and keep him or his 
Secretary of the Department from taking a responsive action to make 
sure the Department is responsive and effective in searching out and 
trying to stop direct threats to the health, safety, and, frankly, the 
lives of people in America.
  It was surprising to me that the bill even moved backward from where 
this President, the previous President, the previous President, the 
previous President, and so forth down the line, had the ability, in 
national security interests, to make some of the changes in terms of 
promoting and rewarding exceptional employees, assigning them to the 
right duties and getting rid of employees who do not want to or are not 
able to do the service expected of them.

  When we are talking about national security, it has been the long 
accepted practice that commanders have to be able to command their 
troops. They are still protected by some 65 to 68 different provisions 
assuring there is no discrimination and a whole other range of 
protections, but to give the managers the flexibility to manage the 
Department of Homeland Security is simply consistent with what previous 
Presidents have exercised for decades. The Presidents can use the power 
of Commander in Chief to make sure the military works. If somebody 
slacks off in the Army, does not show up for a job as a sentry, they do 
not get 30 days of pay and a year and a half of appeals. They have real 
problems right now, and that is because they are dealing with national 
security.
  I believe it is time we move on with homeland security. I was 
delighted to know that the majority leader is committed to moving this 
bill prior to our adjournment. I want to go home as much as anybody 
else, but the very simple way to do that would be to give us an up-or-
down vote on the Gramm-Miller, or Miller-Gramm, substitute, as amended, 
which reflects the President's views to accommodate the interests of 
the reasonable requests made by Members of Congress and others who 
wanted to see changes in it.
  We can pass this bill. All we ask for is an up-or-down vote. If we 
have an up-or-down vote, those who favor the system that has been 
reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee may win or we may 
win, but we certainly ought not hold up the bill simply to prevent a 
vote on what the President said is a critically important issue for 
national security.
  I believe the time has come to stop filling up the trees, trying to 
invoke cloture to prevent a vote, trying to lock in an amendment that 
would undercut the President's power before he has an opportunity to 
have a vote on his proposal. That does not make any sense.
  This body ought to show not only concern for the Commander in Chief's 
request but ought to respect the needs of the American people who must 
be assured we are doing everything in our power to move forward on 
homeland security with the Department that is effectively constituted 
and set up to carry out the responsibilities.


                       Use of Force Against Iraq

  We also have another important issue before the Senate. Before we get 
out of here, I hope very shortly, we will be moving toward a resolution 
authorizing the use of force against the threat posed by Saddam 
Hussein. Let's be clear about the intent. The resolution, that I trust 
the House will adopt and we will adopt, should send a clear message to 
the world community and the Iraqi regime that the demands of the United 
Nations Security Council must be followed. Saddam Hussein must be 
disarmed.
  Previous administrations, both President Clinton and Vice President 
Gore, have outlined the dangers that Saddam Hussein has posed. 
President Clinton made a very forceful statement in 1998 and then on 
May 23 of 2000. The Vice President, Al Gore, said we must get rid of 
Saddam Hussein.
  Regrettably, the situation has gotten worse. Without inspectors, 
there has been no check on the development of weapons of mass 
destruction. We know from defectors and other intelligence sources he 
is moving forward on these issues. We know the Iraqi regime possesses 
biological and chemical weapons. It is rebuilding the facilities to 
make more. According to the report we received from British Prime 
Minister Tony Blair, he could launch a chemical or biological attack in 
as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has 
longstanding and continuous ties to terrorist groups. We know there are 
terrorists operating inside of Iraq. Members of al-Qaida and the Iraq 
Government have been in contact for many years. This regime is seeking 
a nuclear weapon and the delivery capability to go with it.
  Unfortunately, he has readily available other weapons of mass 
destruction such as biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi dictator 
has answered a decade of resolutions from the United Nations with a 
decade of defiance. In the southern and northern fly zones over Iraq, 
coalition aircraft continue to be fired upon and coalition pilots 
continue to put their lives on the line just to enforce these 
resolutions.
  Unfortunately, some elected officials went to Iraq this past weekend 
and said: We trust Saddam Hussein; we do not trust our President. They 
should have watched what we have seen on television, the firing on the 
coalition aircraft by Iraqi forces. In the last 2 weeks alone, 
coalition aircraft have been fired on 67 times. Saddam Hussein claims 
to be willing to accept inspections. He wants to work with us. However, 
67 times he has tried to kill our pilots who are flying to enforce the 
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
  As President Bush stated this past weekend, the Iraqi regime is led 
by a dangerous and brutal man. We know he is actively seeking the 
destructive technologies to match his hatred. We know he must be 
stopped. The dangers we face will only worsen from month to month and 
year to year. To ignore these threats is to encourage them. When they 
fully materialize, it may be too late to protect ourselves and our 
allies. By then, the Iraqi dictator will have had the means to 
materialize and dominate the region and each passing day could be the 
one in which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX nerve gas or a 
nuclear weapon to a terrorist group.
  The mantle of leadership requires this body to act. We have seen the 
United Nations speak loudly and carry a soft stick too long. I am 
pleased to be able to work with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle. I believe we made reasonable accommodations in the resolution 
the President has recommended. I hope we can have hearings on that 
resolution. We see the final words, get it passed by the House, and 
pass it out of this body by a very significant majority vote of both 
parties. That is the clearest message we can send to the United 
Nations, to our allies, to those on the fence, and to the malefactors 
of great evil who lurk in our world today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Georgia.

[[Page S9683]]



                          ____________________