[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20974-20977]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 20975]]

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 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.

[[Page 20976]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 20977]]

     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 
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.

                          ____________________