[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 137 (Thursday, October 17, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10621-S10625]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS--H.R. 5005
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, everyone knows we are attempting to
resolve many of the unfinished pieces of legislative business that
ought to be addressed prior to the time we depart for the election day
break. As everyone knows, we will be coming back. It will be my hope
that we can address a number of the issues involving conference
reports. Of course, we will have to address appropriations when we come
back.
One of those issues that has been the subject of a great deal of
debate and consideration on the Senate floor has been the issue of
homeland security and the creation of the new Department.
It is no secret that Democrats have been frustrated in the effort to
bring the debate to a close. We have had five cloture votes. We have
not reached cloture on each of those five occasions because of
Republican opposition.
My original thought was perhaps that opposition was because of
legitimate language concerns or issues involving the creation of the
Department. I now doubt whether that really is the motivation. I think
there are many on the Republican side who simply oppose the creation of
the Department of Homeland Security. The new Department was a
Democratic idea originally. The President and our Republican colleagues
objected and opposed it unanimously when we passed it out of committee
last summer.
The President finally reversed his position, and the administration's
bill was written by four people with no consultation with Congress.
They sent the bill up as somewhat of a surprise to us all.
The bill they wrote seeks to exploit the issue of homeland security
in order to advance a preexisting ideological agenda. It is an
ultraconservative agenda that is antiworker and obviously anti-union.
More importantly, it has nothing to do with homeland security.
This bill would return us to an era when patronage and political
cronyism ran the Federal workforce--and that is wrong. We say to the
President and our Republican colleagues, public servants are not the
problem. Terrorists are the problem.
The administration's position is an insult to every public servant,
every firefighter, and every first responder who risked their lives
and, in many cases, gave their lives on September 11.
When those union firefighters rushed into the World Trade Center and
the Pentagon on that fateful day last September 11, nobody asked: Are
you a member of a union? That is why the police and firefighters oppose
the Republican plan. That is why the National Association of Police
Organizations wrote to every Senator.
I will quote from their letter.
On September 11, 2001, the union affiliations of law
enforcement officers did not
[[Page S10622]]
keep them from responding to that tragic event, giving aid to
those in need and in many cases, giving their own lives.
Every New York Police Department and New York/New Jersey Port
Authority officer who died that day was a union member,
working under a collective bargaining agreement. The
Administration's claim that the new Department will need
``management flexibility'' to perform its role properly
ignores the heroic efforts of those whom they now wish to
label as an organizational liability.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Association of Police
Organizations, Inc.,
Washington, DC, August 5, 2002.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Association of
Police Organizations (NAPO), representing 220,000 rank-and-
file police officers from across the United States, I would
like to request your support for the collective bargaining
and civil service rights of employees of the proposed
Homeland Security Department. S. 2452, the ``National
Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act of 2002,''
rightly recognizes, unlike H.R. 5005, that collective
bargaining rights are not a hindrance to the formation of the
Homeland Security Department nor to the overall protection of
our nation.
On September 11, 2001, the union affiliations of law
enforcement officers did not keep them from responding to
that tragic event, giving aid to those in need and in many
cases, giving their own lives. Every NYPD and NY/NJ Port
Authority officer who died that day was a union member,
working under a collective bargaining agreement. The
Administration's claim that the new Department will need
``management flexibility'' to perform its role properly
ignores the heroic efforts of those whom they now wish to
label as an organizational liability. S. 2452 further allows
the Homeland Security Secretary to bring in talent outside of
civil service rules when truly necessary for our nation's
defense and provides other changes to better facilitate
hiring, retention and promotions.
Congress has long recognized the benefits of a mutual
working relationship between labor and management and, over
the years, has extended collective bargaining rights to
public employees including letter carriers, postal clerks,
public transit employees and congressional employees. When
the Senate considers S. 2452 this September, NAPO requests
that you support the Senate Homeland Security legislation,
specifically Section 187, as passed by the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee. This bill properly recognizes
and protects the genuine efforts of those unionized employees
who might otherwise lose their deserved civil service and
collective bargaining rights.
NAPO looks forward to working with the Senate to safeguard
these rights and ensure their longevity. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me, or NAPO's
Legislative Assistant, Lucian H. Deaton, at (202) 842-4420.
Sincerely,
William J. Johnson,
Executive Director.
Mr. DASCHLE. Since this debate began, Democrats have worked in good
faith for a compromise. We have compromised and compromised and
compromised. The bipartisan Nelson-Breaux-Chafee compromise is a long
way from the Lieberman bill. It preserves the President's authority to
take away the union rights of homeland security employees as long as he
states there is a need, and it accedes to the President's demand that
we waive civil service protections for Department employees.
In fact, when it comes to new flexibility to hire, fire, and redeploy
workers, there is absolutely no difference between the Gramm amendment
and the Nelson compromise. The difference with our approach and the
Gramm approach is simple: We require the Department to consult--to
consult--with employee representatives as they develop a new personnel
system, and if an agreement between management and employees cannot be
reached, then management's proposal can be imposed by a Federal panel
comprised entirely of the President's appointees.
You can't get any more reasonable than that. Yet to prevent a vote on
this bipartisan compromise, the Republicans, as I have noted, have
blocked cloture not once or twice but now on five occasions--three
times on the Lieberman bill and twice on their own bill.
They filibustered because they said they wanted an up-or-down vote on
their bill. We offered them that. They filibustered again because they
said the vote on the Gramm bill had to come first.
So today we are offering Republicans exactly what they claim they
want. If they object again, it will be even more clear what is really
going on.
This is a Republican filibuster, plain and simple.
Democrats want to finish this bill. We support homeland security. We
always have. We introduced it. But the other side would rather have an
issue. They are filibustering this bill because they want to use this
issue against Democrats in the next 2 weeks before the elections.
They would rather use this as an issue to run scurrilous ads, such as
the one they are now running--or were running--to compare a war hero
such as Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. That is what
is going on here, and, Mr. President, it is unconscionable. They would
rather play that nasty brand of politics than pass this bill. I hope
they will reconsider and accept this unanimous consent request.
Therefore, Mr. President, I will now propound it.
I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of
H.R. 5005, the homeland defense bill, the motion to recommit be
withdrawn and the Nelson amendment No. 4740 to the Gramm-Miller
amendment be withdrawn; that there be a 1-hour time limit on the Gramm
amendment, and at the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate
vote on the Gramm-Miller amendment; that immediately upon the
disposition of that amendment, if it is agreed to, Senator Nelson
of Nebraska be recognized to offer an amendment, the text of which will
be identical to amendment No. 4740; that it shall be in order
notwithstanding the fact that it is to amended text; that there be a
time limitation of 1 hour on his amendment, and that at the conclusion
or yielding back of the time, the Senate vote on the Nelson amendment,
with the preceding all occurring without any further intervening action
or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. If you read this unanimous consent request, three things
strike you, I think.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, regular order.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to respond to our dear majority
leader. I am coming to the end of my Senate career, and I do not want
to end it by getting into fussing and fighting with anybody. Let me
first respond by explaining what is wrong with this unanimous consent
request and why it does not move the ball forward in protecting
Americans. I then want to propose several alternatives, any one of
which would move the ball forward. Then I want to respond to some of
the comments the majority leader made.
First of all, under this unanimous consent request, we do not bring
homeland security back up. If you read the unanimous consent request,
you see that it says, ``Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
when the Senate resumes. . . .''
Well, who controls when the Senate resumes consideration of homeland
security? The majority leader. So this unanimous consent request does
not even bring the issue back before the Senate. Everybody knows today
is the last day of the session.
Secondly, what this unanimous consent request says is, we will vote
on Gramm-Miller and, if it is successful, we will turn around and vote
on an amendment that completely reverses Gramm-Miller, and we will do
that within an hour. And then the debate is not over. The majority
leader has the power to continue the debate, stop the debate, or pull
the bill down. We are no closer to passage of a bill after these two
votes occur than we are before the two votes occur.
This unanimous consent request has nothing to do with moving the ball
forward on homeland security. It has everything to do with deception
because, under this request, there is not even a second vote unless
Gramm-Miller passes. Then, if it passes, we turn right around, within 1
hour, and vote to reverse the vote, letting those who are in hotly
contested elections have the incredible possibility, in 1 day, within 1
hour, to be on three sides of a two-sided issue. It would allow people
to
[[Page S10623]]
vote for Gramm-Miller and, since it is the President's compromise, with
the President, and then turn around, an hour later, and to completely
gut it and to go back to where we are now with the bill that is before
the Senate.
So we don't go to it now. We have no control over when or if we ever
go to it in this Congress. We can vote yes and no, back to back, within
an hour, so people can be on both sides of the issue. Senator Daschle
referred to Max Cleland. He could vote for Gramm-Miller and turn around
in an hour and completely gut Gramm-Miller, and be on three sides of a
two-sided issue.
Now, there are alternatives that would be acceptable, and I am going
to propound several of them shortly. But let me first address some of
the issues the majority leader addressed.
First of all, there is this idea that we don't want a homeland
security bill. Everybody wants a homeland security bill. I have never
suggested the Democrats don't want a homeland security bill. They love
homeland security. Their problem is, they love public employee labor
unions more.
Their problem is that this isn't like Iraq. Saddam Hussein has no
powerful political allies in America. So we had some differences of
opinion, but we were able to work them out. We were able to go forward
on a bipartisan basis. We can't work this out because the public
employee labor unions are the largest contributors to Democrat
candidates. And as a result, you can't be for letting the President
have the tools he needs on national security and be with the public
employee labor unions. We have to choose, and we have been unable to
make that choice. There have been some good-faith efforts to bridge the
gap, but we have been unsuccessful.
In terms of what has happened, the President sent a bill up on June
6. The House adopted a bipartisan measure on a huge, bipartisan,
lopsided vote of 295 to 132. Democrats and Republicans voted together
to give the President the power he asked for--which is some flexibility
in 6 out of the 71 titles of the Civil Service Act--to allow him the
ability to put the right person in the right place at the right time.
This idea that this would bring back cronyism and discrimination is
totally invalid. The Gramm-Miller amendment and the bill adopted in the
House required that the President not act in arbitrary and capricious
ways, not discriminate, and strictly limited his decisions to merit and
performance. So that is not really an issue as to what we are talking
about.
This is the calendar. The calendar points out that the Senate has yet
to act. Every time we have come close to reaching a bipartisan
agreement, we basically have run into the hurdle that there is strong
opposition to those who would like to change the system as it relates
to homeland security. So we have the incredible specter that we have
come to the end of the session. The President over and over again has
compromised.
The Gramm-Miller amendment, according to Senator Lieberman, contains
95 percent of the changes he sought in the President's bill. If 95
percent is not compromise, what is compromise?
Finally, on the point of compromise, to stand up and suggest that the
Nelson amendment and the Gramm-Miller amendment are identical simply
does not bear up under scrutiny. Under the Nelson amendment, the
President would lose national security powers he had on September 11.
How many Americans would feel comfortable knowing that the Congress is
trying to weaken the President's ability to respond to terrorism in the
name of homeland security? I think it would come as a shock to most
people to realize that is the case. But nobody denies it is the case.
In fact, when we offered the Gramm-Miller amendment, I put a little
provision at the end of it, sort of as bait, that said: Nothing in this
bill shall be construed as taking power away from the President to
protect America that he had on September 11. So when the Nelson
amendment was offered, guess what the last provision of it was. It
struck that language.
I don't think anybody is deceived. I don't think they are going to be
deceived by a unanimous consent request that does not bring up homeland
security, that does not move us toward final passage, and that allows
Members to vote yes and no on the same day 1 hour apart.
There are ways we can move the ball forward. I want to address those.
Let me also say, the majority leader brought up Max Cleland. The
issue here is, are you with the President on homeland security or are
you against him? That is what the issue is. The plain truth is,
everybody knows we are one vote short of passing the homeland security
bill--one vote short. If we had one more vote, we could pass this bill
and we could start the process of protecting America. But we do not
have that vote.
Whose vote is it? Well, it is any one person who is not with the
President's program as he has compromised on it. Senator Miller is with
it. He is a sponsor of it. He is a lead sponsor of it. The plain truth
is, we are one vote short.
I assure you, if I were running against anybody in America and they
were opposed to the President's compromise on homeland security, I
would consider it to be a legitimate issue. If that is not a legitimate
issue, there is not a legitimate issue in America. The fact that we are
adjourning this Congress instead of staying here today and tomorrow and
from now until we get the job done is totally and absolutely
irresponsible.
Having said all that, let me propose some unanimous consent requests
myself.
First, let me take the Daschle unanimous consent and change it
slightly. Let's bring the bill up right now. Let's not leave it to the
majority leader as to whether it would be brought up. Let's bring it up
and let's have a vote on the Gramm-Miller amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume
consideration of H.R. 5005, the homeland defense bill; that the motion
to recommit be withdrawn, and the Nelson amendment No. 4740 to the
Gramm-Miller amendment be withdrawn; that there be an hour time
limitation on the Gramm-Miller amendment; and at the conclusion or
yielding back of the time, the Senate vote on the Gramm-Miller
amendment.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my friend
from Texas, my good friend--and I will miss him a lot next year--
reminds me of a time when my brother, who is 10 years older than me,
got a job. He had this nice, white uniform with a bow tie, working for
Standard Stations. And it was a big deal for the Reid family. He was
placed to work in Ash Fork, AZ, not a great metropolis, but compared to
where I was raised, it was a big city. My brother asked his little
brother to spend a week with him in Ash Fork. I had never been
anyplace, so I looked forward to that.
What I didn't know was that my brother had a girlfriend in Ash Fork.
He spent most of his time with the girlfriend. I spent most of my time,
not with my brother but with his girlfriend's brother.
Her brother was a year or so older than I, but we played games. I
never beat him in anything, the reason being, he kept changing the
rules in the middle of the game. So no matter what I did, I couldn't
win.
That is kind of how I feel about homeland security. No matter what we
do, you folks won't take yes for an answer. It is always something
different. So it reminds me of my experience in Ash Fork.
I say to my friend, who has a Ph.D. in economics, is a college
professor, and is very smart, this calendar you have given us is an
illusion. The numbers you have there are just a fantasy. The fact is,
we have tried to do everything we could to pass this. I am happy to
hear the Senator say he wants to continue working on this. But the
unanimous consent request he has propounded gives him everything and
gives us nothing.
We have said--in fact, the majority leader said--we agreed to give
you what you asked for. We would have a vote on your proposition first,
vote on that first, and then we would vote on ours second. You say that
is not good, even though I asked for it earlier. The reason I guess it
is not good is that we might pass our amendment. And if we do, it
knocks out a few pages of a 100-page bill.
With great respect for my friend from Texas, with whom I have served
in the House and Senate and will miss next year, without reservation or
qualification, I object.
[[Page S10624]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I love my colleague from Nevada. He is such
a sweet man. His heart is so good. His views on things sometimes are
not so good. But as long as we have people around like him, the place
works pretty well.
Let me respond to his remarks, and I will try another unanimous
consent request on it.
What I have propounded is exactly what Senator Miller and the
President and I have asked; that is, to have an up-or-down vote on our
amendment. My colleague from Nevada would like to do it so that people
can vote yes and no within an hour and so that people can, in essence,
be in a position where they might deceive the public, yet we are no
closer to passage than we were before we started. I just don't think
that makes any sense. I am not claiming that deception is the intent,
but I do believe that would be the result. Let me try another approach.
I ask unanimous consent that the Nelson amendment be adopted, with
one amendment, and that amendment is that nothing in this bill shall be
construed as taking away a national security power and a power to
protect America that the President had on September 11, and that after
the Nelson amendment is adopted with this provision added to it, the
Gramm-Miller amendment be in order; that it be debated for 3 hours, and
that there be an up-or-down vote on that amendment, and at the
conclusion of that amendment, whether it is successful or not, we have
a vote on final passage.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that a statement by Mark Hall, a U.S. Border Patrol
agent, be printed in the Record. It is two and a half pages.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Statement by Mark Hall, President, AFGE Local 2499, U.S. Border Patrol,
July 31, 2002
Good Morning. My name is Mark Hall. For the past 18 years I
have worked as a U.S. border patrol agent, 15 of them based
in Detroit, Michigan. I am also President of AFGE Local 2499.
I have dedicated my life to defending the national security
of this country and do not understand how my role as union
leader is incompatible with my oath to protect and defend the
Constitution of the U.S.
I believe that the two hats I wear as I patrol the Northern
Border of the U.S. are entirely consistent. In fact, if not
for the fact that I am a union member, I might not be a
border patrol agent today. In the months after the terrorists
attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11
of last year, I became increasingly concerned about the
vulnerability of our northern border and our agency's
inadequate response to that threat.
Despite public assurances from the Immigration and
Naturalization Service and the Department of Justice that we
were responding to this threat, few agents were being posted
at our station in Detroit or any other along the Northern
Border that I was aware of.
I spoke with my local management about the problem and was
told, essentially, to keep quiet. Having taken an oath to
defend the Constitution--not the INS--I decided it was my
responsibility to speak out about the danger we faced along
our border with Canada. I, along with another agent and
former marine, Bob Lindemann, talked to a newspaper and
television program about our concerns. As a result of this
decision my sector chief tried to fire us immediately, and
failing that, settled on a 90-day suspension, one-year
demotion, and reassignment.
The Office of Special Counsel which investigated the
Agency's action uncovered internal emails from the sector
chief stating ``the President of the local union deemed it
necessary to independently question our readiness in a public
forum'', adding that managers must take a ``stance which
bears no tolerance for dissent and to view resistance from
the rank and file as insubordinate''.
It was only through the combined protections of my union,
and the whistleblower protection law that the proposed
disciplinary actions were indeed, I would never have spoken
out if I hadn't had my union behind me because
whistleblower protections alone would not have been
enough. I want to take this opportunity to thank my union
and the lawmakers responsible for the whistle-blower law
for helping me when I needed it. Without such help, I
would not be a border patrol agent today.
The President uses the words ``national security'' and
``flexibility'' to describe his goals in creating this new
agency, but his hard line and his veto threat show it's about
something far more serious--politics.
No one imposed union representation on agents of the Border
Patrol--we voted for that representation democratically. And
now the President has decided to override our vote and
eliminate our only means of holding the managers and
political appointees who run the agency accountable to the
American people.
Our union is not just about economic issues--Congress sets
our pay levels so that they're in line with other law
enforcement officers. Our union is also about protecting the
chance for the employees to speak out when we see
mismanagement, fraud, and security breaches. Our union is
part of the system of checks and balances we have in our
democracy.
The other thing the President is insisting on is the right
to do away with fair and open competition among our citizens
for the privileged to work for the U.S. government. He wants
to take away the laws that give us a civil service system
that is outside politics, patronage, and cronyism. He says
``trust me,'' I'll write new rules that will be just as good.
But if he gets his way, there'll be no union to speak out
when the political good ol' boy system takes the place of
these laws.
Congress just passed a corporate accountability law because
it turned out that when top managers have all the power to do
as they please they tend to abuse that power. There was no
accountability. Well, in the federal government, and
certainly in the border patrol, there is accountability when
the workers who lay their lives on the line every day have a
union contract backing them up when they question managers
who are misappropriating funds, or discriminating in hiring
or firing, or failing to put resources where the threats are
greatest.
The American people better hope that the President is true
to his word when he says that he can be trusted to keep
objective standards for qualifying for a job as a U.S. Border
Patrol agent. If being a union supporter or belonging to the
wrong political party disqualify an otherwise fit job
candidate, you can be sure that homeland security will
suffer.
Our union has been accused of standing in the way of
homeland security. The President says our contract and the
civil service laws tie the hands of managers who may need to
reassign agents for special assignments or for emergencies.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I have been shot at twice, hit, kicked, spit-on, and bitten
in the course of carrying out my duties. I have spent months
away from my family on detail--as much a four months in a
year away from home. I have received dozens of commendations
for outstanding service to the Border Patrol. I joined the
union 17 years ago, and there has never been one instance
when my union membership caused me to compromise the security
of this nation. In fact, our union has helped me and my
fellow officers make this nation a better and safer place. I
thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I will be
happy to answer any questions.
Mr. GRAMM. I could not hear the Senator.
Mr. REID. I said I have a statement from a Border Patrol agent. It is
a two-and-a-half page letter.
Mr. GRAMM. I have no objection.
Mr. REID. I will read one short sentence in the letter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request of the Senator from Texas is
pending.
Mr. REID. It says:
The President uses the words ``national security'' and
``flexibility'' to describe the goals in creating this new
agency, but his hard line and his veto threat show it's about
something far more serious--politics.
That is what this is about, changing the rules of the game.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me try one more.
I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 5005, the homeland defense bill, be
brought before the Senate; that each side have three amendments and
that they have an opportunity, going back and forth, to offer those
amendments; that the Gramm-Miller amendment be the pending amendment;
that when each side has had an opportunity to debate and vote on their
three amendments, that there be a vote on final passage of the bill.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, you see, the reason my
friend from Texas is wrong about this unanimous consent agreement is we
don't need it. If we voted on the two pending amendments, the Gramm
amendment and the one we want to go forward with, the Breaux amendment
and the Nelson amendment, of course--there is still room for other
amendments. It doesn't cut off debate.
If cloture were invoked, there are other germane amendments we would
have. This is all part of the illusion being created here. They don't
want a bill.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me conclude by simply saying this. What
normally happens under these circumstances is this: We are not going to
[[Page S10625]]
pass a homeland security bill and Americans are going to the polls;
they are basically going to make a decision. They might decide that
Senator Daschle is right, that the President doesn't care anything
about national security, that he is out to bust the unions, and that we
really don't need to change business as usual in Washington as it
relates to homeland security. I think that is a possibility. People
might reach that conclusion.
But I think there is an alternative possibility. I think people are
going to reach a conclusion that when it came down to making a hard
decision that meant changing business as usual in Washington, that
required us to change a system for national security reasons and the
protection of the life and health of our people, that meant going
against the way things have been done here for 50 or 60 years, that the
Democrats are unwilling to make that change and the President wanted to
make the change.
I just remind my colleagues that when Senator Daschle was talking
about the President's efforts at union busting, we have had three major
commissions that have looked at our current Government system--the
civil service system--in areas of national security and terrorism. The
two major ones are the Volcker Commission and the Rudman Commission.
Paul Volcker was a Democrat-appointed head of the Federal Reserve Bank
and one of the most respected people in America. Warren Rudman is one
of our former colleagues and was one of our most respected Republican
members. Both of them headed up blue ribbon commissions to look at our
ability to respond to threats to our national security, and both of
those commissions concluded unanimously that we needed to change the
current civil service system as it related to the ability to promote on
merit and the ability to put the right person in the right place at the
right time. That is what the President has asked for.
So like so many issues in the greatest democracy in history, this is
one where you have to choose. The President cannot succeed because he
is one vote short. I don't believe the Democrats could pass their bill
because I think some of their own members would not vote for it on
final passage, and none of our members are going to vote for a bill
that the President said he will veto.
So we have an impasse, and it comes down to a choice. It is not a
choice that Senator Reid is going to make, or one that I am going to
make. It is a choice the people back home are going to make. They have
heard each side with its own focus, twist, spin, or whatever the
conventional wisdom is. But, ultimately, it is the judgment of the
American people that we are going to stand by, and I am willing to
stand by it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Utah is recognized.
____________________