[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 22861-22874]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    FAREWELL TO SENATOR ROBERT SMITH

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, last year when my beloved little dog Billy 
passed away, many people came to me to express their condolences. It 
was like losing one of the family. My wife and I have shed many tears 
over little Billy. There is never a day that I don't pass his little 
box of ashes that is sitting up in my bedroom, never a day that I don't 
touch that little box and think of little Billy. He has been with us 15 
years.
  We have a new dog now, one which is a very sweet little female dog. 
She is a lap dog. She is a Shi Tzu, a dog that came out of Tibet. It 
was bred to be a lap dog in the palace, extremely friendly, knows no 
person is not a friend. She just smothers my wife's face with kisses--
and mine, too. So we love her.
  But I said to Erma the other night: Erma, if Billy could come back 
tomorrow, would he still be No. 1? And both she and I said yes; even 
though we love this little dog, the little dog we have now, the 
female--she is called Trouble; I think my wife saw me coming when she 
named the little dog Trouble. I said to Erma, if Billy came back 
tonight, would he still be No. 1, and she said yes. And we both agreed 
that Billy would still be No. 1.
  Last year, when our beloved dog Billy Byrd passed away, many people 
came to me to express their condolences. But one who really, really 
touched me was a big, hulking Navy combat veteran who came to my office 
and showed a personal compassion in that moment of sorrow. That person 
came to talk about the little dog that I had lost. He had read about 
the passing of our little dog Billy. He read the story in the 
newspaper, and he came to my office to express his sorrow.
  Who was he? That person was the senior Senator from New Hampshire, 
Mr. Robert Smith. He would make about two of me, Robert Byrd. Here he 
came to my office, took his own busy time to come to my office. This 
was back in April of this year. He came to my office, paid a special 
visit to my office to tell me how sorry he was to hear about my little 
dog Billy.
  So once again, as I have many times in my long years with which God 
has blessed me, I came to realize that the people with whom we work 
here in the Senate often have a personal side that we do not get to 
know or understand in our working relationships on the Senate floor. 
Our colleagues are usually much more complex than their public persona 
would lead one to believe and have facets to their characters that are 
not often seen in their daily official activities.
  But Senator Robert Smith's thoughtful expression of sympathy gave me 
a better understanding and appreciation for this man who for several 
years now has proudly represented his State in the Senate. He is on the 
Armed Services Committee with me. I have served on that committee now 
with him these many years. Senator Smith possesses an admirable quality 
of perseverance. As a young man, he had to work his way through 
college. Although he was the son of a naval aviator who was killed in 
combat during World War II, when Robert Smith was old enough, he 
enlisted in the Navy and he proudly served our country in combat in 
Vietnam. He is a person who had to run for Congress three times before 
being elected. As a Senator, his tenacious adherence to his independent 
ways eventually cost him his Senate seat.
  He has often been portrayed as a fierce conservative, but I came to 
perceive him as the ``citizen legislator'' that he promised to be when 
he was first elected to Congress in 1984. In his twelve years in the 
Senate, he has been a forceful advocate of the many and

[[Page 22862]]

various causes in which he believes, and he has never been deterred by 
the labels others may place on those views.
  Bob Smith's politics is not easy to characterize, from his support 
for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget to helping to 
preserve and protect our environment, he has defied easy labels. 
Senator Smith has also been a strong advocate for modernizing his 
state's and the nation's infrastructure, and for that I sincerely 
applaud him. He has also tenaciously fought to gain a thorough 
accounting of American MIAs and POWs.
  I have probably opposed Senator Smith more than I have agreed with 
him, but I have consistently been impressed with his independence of 
spirit and thought, and his dedication to the causes in which he 
believes. I am confident that in his future efforts he will continue to 
demonstrate the steadfastness, courage, and integrity that he has 
exemplified during his twelve years in this chamber. I wish him well in 
his future endeavors.
  I hope he will, indeed, come back and visit those who are his 
colleagues of this date.


                     RECONSTRUCTION OF AFGHANISTAN

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on another matter, it was just over one year 
ago, on November 12, 2001, that Afghanistan's government of religious 
extremists fled Kabul. The rule of the Taliban soon collapsed in the 
rest of the country, and a new government, endorsed by the United 
Nations, took shape. Despite this new government, the United States 
still has more than 8,000 troops in Afghanistan performing a number of 
important missions, from tracking down al-Qaida terrorists who have 
taken to the hills to providing security to the new Afghan President. 
In other words, from tracking down al-Qaida terrorists, who have taken 
to the hills on the one hand, to providing security to the new Afghan 
President on the other hand.
  But the situation in Afghanistan is anything but stable. Our troops 
still face hit-and-run attacks from al-Qaida and Taliban fighters. The 
leadership of the new Afghan government has been targeted for 
assassination. Warlords that control portions of Afghanistan's 
countryside have questionable allegiance to the central government. Two 
million Afghan refugees have returned to their homes in the past year, 
many finding that their homes had been destroyed by war and their 
fields ravaged by drought.
  But with the Administration gearing up for a new war in Iraq, 
important questions must be asked. What is our plan for Afghanistan? 
How great is the risk that we will lose the peace after winning a war 
in a poor, landlocked Central Asian country? Is the potential for war 
with Iraq shifting our attention from unfinished business in 
Afghanistan?
  Recent press reports on the situation in Afghanistan are not 
encouraging. On November 8, the Washington Post carried an article 
which quotes the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard 
Myers, as saying that we have ``lost a little momentum'' in tracking 
down terrorists in Afghanistan. With al-Qaeda adapting to our military 
tactics, the report continues, the Pentagon is now debating whether to 
emphasize reconstruction efforts at the expense of military operations.
  Such a shift in mission should not be taken lightly. Unless clear 
goals are laid out for the rehabilitation of Afghanistan and a sensible 
strategy is enunciated to achieve those ends, our nation could find its 
feet sinking into the quicksand that is Afghanistan.
  I was in Afghanistan 47 years ago. I went to Afghanistan as a member 
of the subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I saw 
enough of Afghanistan to convince me at that time that it was very 
difficult to subjugate that country. Since then, the Soviets tried and 
failed. Before then, the British tried and they failed. We have already 
spent over $20 billion in Afghanistan, and we still don't have Osama 
bin Laden. We are a long way from winning that war, if that is what we 
are trying to do.
  Let us not forget our recent, tragic history with nation building, 
such as our attempts to pacify the chaos of Somalia in the early 1990s. 
We should also not forget that in 1979, the Soviet Union grabbed 
control of Kabul in little more than a day, but spent the next nine 
years trying to extend its control to the rest of the country. Those 
people are not easy to handle.
  Today, the United States has no clear goals or sensible strategy for 
how to work with our allies to rebuild Afghanistan. Instead of a clear 
plan of action, we hear lip service about a Marshall Plan for 
Afghanistan. Start sinking money into that bottomless pit. Such grand 
promises, if left unfulfilled, would send the wrong message to our 
allies and the Afghan people about our commitment to seeing that that 
country does not again become a haven for terrorists.
  The Administration has already sent confusing messages to Congress 
about its commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan. On August 13, 2002, the 
President refused to designate as emergency spending $174 million in 
humanitarian aid for Afghanistan, which was contained in the Fiscal 
Year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act. By refusing to designate 
those funds as an emergency, the President did not allow the funds to 
be spent as Congress intended.
  While the President refused to spend that money, he has publicly 
promised $300 million in foreign aid to Afghanistan for fiscal year 
2003. However, Congress has not received any such request. As the 
committee report for the Fiscal Year 2003 Foreign Operations 
Appropriations bill, as reported unanimously from the Senate 
Appropriations Committee on July 18, states:

       The Committee is, therefore, perplexed that, despite calls 
     for a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan and the critical 
     importance to U.S. national security, the administration did 
     not submit a formal fiscal year 2003 budget request for 
     Afghanistan. The Committee has been informally advised that 
     the administration plans to spend approximately $98,000,000 
     for Afghanistan in funds from the Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.

  If the administration fails to back up its promises of aid with 
actual dollars, how are we ever going to complete our mission in 
Afghanistan? We ought to be reasonable with our promises, but once we 
make a commitment, this nation should put our money where our mouth is.
  It is clear that the United States must do more to focus the 
international community on creating a concrete plan of action for 
rebuilding Afghanistan. But the first step in creating this plan is to 
get the administration's attention off of Iraq just long enough to give 
serious consideration to the problems in Afghanistan. To that end, the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee has reported a bill to authorize 
$3.3 billion in aid for Afghanistan. This bill was passed by the Senate 
last week.
  While I share with the authors of the bill the great concern about 
the potential for Afghanistan to slide back into chaos and disorder, I 
have serious reservations about several provisions of this bill.
  First, the bill authorizes $3.3 billion in foreign aid for 
Afghanistan with no indication of why this figure was proposed. It is 
important to understand that the authorization of those funds does not 
actually allow the U.S. Government to spend a single dime for 
Afghanistan. It takes an appropriations bill to spend that money. As 
Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the committee that is 
expected to come up with the cash to fund such an authorization, I do 
not understand how this figure of $3.3 billion was reached. I am left 
with the impression that the bill in question authorizes these billions 
of dollars simply to send a message that rebuilding Afghanistan is an 
important task.
  Second, as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I am not sure 
where Congress would find the funds to fulfill the $3.3 billion 
commitment to Afghanistan. Will the administration support cutting back 
on some of our foreign aid programs in order to send money to 
Afghanistan? Or will the administration propose to increase our foreign 
aid spending in order to fund this new aid package? Without the 
cooperation of the administration, it would be difficult to appropriate 
the

[[Page 22863]]

full amount of the funds that are authorized by this bill. As I am sure 
the sponsors of the bill would agree, the last thing we need are more 
empty promises to help the people of Afghanistan.
  Third, the Afghanistan aid bill contains a sense of the Congress 
provision that encourages the President to work to expand the U.N. 
peacekeeping mission now underway in Kabul to include the whole of 
Afghanistan. Right now, the United States is not a participant in that 
peacekeeping mission. It is not clear what role our troops would have 
in such an expanded peacekeeping mission, but Congress should be 
careful not to endorse the commitment of our soldiers to such a mission 
before we have an understanding of what that commitment might entail, 
such as how many troops might be involved, how long they might be 
there, and what goals must be achieved before withdrawal.
  Finally, while this bill pushes for more aid and more peacekeepers 
for Afghanistan, we are still without a plan or strategy for our 
involvement in that country. The administration needs to work with our 
allies and the United Nations to produce an understandable strategy 
that will address the reconstruction needs of Afghanistan, while 
sharing the costs among all countries that have an interest in the 
peace and security of that nation.
  The future of Afghanistan is an important national security issue for 
the United States. Discontent is being sown in Afghanistan by al-Qaida 
agents, and if order again breaks down in Afghanistan, we can bet that 
terrorists and extremists will try to take advantage of the situation. 
If Osama bin Laden is still alive, which recent reports seem to 
indicate, I am sure that he is looking forward to the failure of U.S. 
and allied efforts to bring security and stability to Afghanistan. If 
we are to head him off at the pass, the first thing we need to do is 
have a clear plan of action.
  While the President seems eager to use military force against Saddam 
Hussein, I urge him first to take care of the unfinished business in 
Afghanistan. The situation is crying for his attention. The Senate has 
passed a bill to authorize funds to address the problems in 
Afghanistan, but it is up to the President to show the leadership that 
is needed to prevent the situation in that country from further 
deterioration.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator from West Virginia yield 
for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I will.
  Mr. REID. I apologize for interrupting, but I wanted to engage the 
Senator for a brief minute on homeland security.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Let me tell you what I wanted to ask the Senator. I heard 
the very fine statement of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, 
talking about all the bad things that are encompassed in the Daschle 
amendment. But he finished his statement by saying: Well, but there is 
nothing else we can do. I am going to have to vote for the bill.
  The Senator from West Virginia has served in the House of 
Representatives, is that not true?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I have, also. Now, the Senator is aware that the House of 
Representatives has not yet completed its business. They have sent 
everybody home, but the leadership is still in place. Does the Senator 
understand that?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. REID. And they, the leadership, have the authority to pass, as we 
do here, legislation by unanimous consent. Does the Senator understand 
that?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. REID. My concern here is that Members of the House of 
Representatives, including Dan Burton, one of the leading long-term 
House Members and a very conservative man from Indiana--I served with 
him when I was there--he said, talking about the things that are in the 
Daschle amendment, of which the Senator from West Virginia is a 
cosponsor----
  Mr. BYRD. By unanimous consent, I had asked to cosponsor the 
amendment, yes.
  Mr. REID. Chairman Burton said:

       These provisions don't belong in the bill. This is not a 
     homeland security issue. This is a fairness issue.

  And he goes on to say, talking about one provision; that is, the 
vaccine:

       Fifteen years ago, one in every 10,000 children were 
     autistic. Today, one in every 250 children is autistic. We 
     have an epidemic on our hands. More and more parents believe 
     the autism affecting their children is relating to a vaccine 
     or a mercury preservative.

  And he goes on. I say to the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia, as to people talking about endangering the homeland security 
bill by voting for this amendment, does the Senator agree with me this 
is senseless? That if this amendment is as bad as Chairman Burton and 
the Senator from Pennsylvania said, shouldn't we vote on the merits of 
that and just have the House accept our changes? We wouldn't have to go 
to conference. Does the Senator understand that?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, the House could accept the amendment. If the Senate 
adopts the amendment, the House could accept it and there would be no 
conference.
  Mr. REID. Wouldn't that be the best? Let's say this amendment has the 
merits, as indicated in the statement of Congressman Burton. We have 
heard statements here on the floor for several days now about all the 
very bad things in this homeland security amendment.
  This is my question to the Senator from West Virginia, who has 
studied this legislation more than anyone else: Wouldn't it seem 
appropriate and good legislation if we voted in favor of this amendment 
and sent it back to the House? That is why they arranged to come back, 
in case there would be some housekeeping they have to do. Wouldn't that 
be the best thing to do with this large 484-page piece of legislation?
  Mr. BYRD. I should think so. It would be my feeling, Mr. President, 
that we ought to look at the amendment on its face, on its merits, and 
vote for it. If I were disposed to vote against it--there are some who 
will--but those of us who are for it should not back away because of 
some scare tactic that is being used by the White House to try to get 
Members to vote against that amendment. Where is the House of 
Representatives supposed to be? They get paid the same salaries as we 
do. Their job is not finished. Our job is not finished. Why shouldn't 
they be here?
  Over the many years I have been in the Senate, 44 years now, time and 
time again I have seen the House pass a conference report or 
appropriations bill or something, and walk away and leave the Senate 
holding the bag. There is no reason why they should not have to come 
back, if we pass an amendment and it goes to conference. They should 
come back and finish their work. This is an important piece of work. 
They ought not go home on the pretext that, if this measure is passed 
by the Senate, they should not have a conference on it. Or the White 
House should not be spreading the scare stories.
  If the House wants to have a conference, that's fine. If the House 
doesn't want to have a conference and wants to accept the bill, it can, 
or it wants to accept the amendment, it can. Then that could go to the 
President for his veto, if he wishes.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate very much the Senator yielding.
  I simply close by saying I really think we would be doing the 
President, the Congress, and the country a favor by adopting this 
amendment. It would take all the talk radio out of all the bad things 
in this bill--at least many of the bad things. I repeat, I think we 
would be doing the President a favor by passing this amendment, sending 
this bill to the House, and then let them handle that bill accordingly.
  I am confident that they arranged to come back, anyway, for things 
like this. I think they probably understood it would be very difficult 
for the Senate to accept their bill exactly as they sent it to us. So, 
again, I appreciate the Senator yielding. I think anyone saying--as the 
Senator from Pennsylvania did, and I am paraphrasing him, not saying 
exactly what he said--that

[[Page 22864]]

even though there were bad things in this amendment, he saw no 
alternative but to go ahead and vote to get this thing out of here 
because otherwise the whole bill would come down, I simply state for 
the record that will not happen and that is not the case.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
  I would only add that if the whole thing comes down, that may be for 
the best. That may be for the best. It has a lot more wrong with that 
bill suddenly dumped upon us in the early hours of Wednesday morning. 
As far as I am concerned, greater mischief can happen in many ways than 
having that bill die. As far as I am concerned, we ought to be back 
next year and take our time and do a good job on that bill. I have 
always been for homeland security. I was one of the first around here 
to state that we needed a Department of Homeland Security. But this 
bill that has 484 pages in it, that has been suddenly dumped upon us, 
dumped on us--as far as I am concerned, it would be no great tragedy if 
that bill would die and we could start again next year.
  Having that bill is not going to make the American people one whit 
more secure--not one whit--because even if that bill is passed, the 
President is going to have 12 months in which to submit his plan, which 
we know nothing about at this time. When we pass this bill, we will not 
know anything about his plan. But under that bill the Congress 
authorizes the President to submit his plan. That plan will 
automatically go into effect after a certain number of months, the most 
of which would be 12 months. It will automatically go into effect.
  We don't know today what is in his plan. He probably doesn't know yet 
what he intends to submit as a plan. As far as I am concerned, we are 
buying a pig in the poke and Senators ought not vote for that bill. But 
at the very least, Senators ought to vote for this amendment because it 
does clean up a little bit of what is wrong with the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Republican leader.


                     Tribute To Senator Phil Gramm

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, it is a pleasure and a privilege for all 
of us to serve in the Senate. One of the great benefits of serving in 
the Senate is we have the opportunity to serve with some outstanding 
individuals--outstanding leaders not only in their States but 
outstanding leaders in their country.
  One of those individuals that I will always rank as one of my 
favorite Senators, and one of the most effective Senators I have had 
the privilege and pleasure of serving with, is Senator Phil Gramm of 
Texas.
  Senator Gramm was elected to and served 6 years in the House. He was 
elected in 1978. He was elected as a Democrat. Eventually he resigned 
and ran as a Republican. I think he was the first person to do that in 
a century. It was a pretty phenomenal thing. Then he came to the Senate 
where he has served for 18 years. Much to my regret, he announced he 
would be retiring and will soon complete his very distinguished Senate 
career. Seldom do you find a person who makes such a difference in 
public policy over that period of time, as Senator Gramm has.
  I was elected to the Senate in 1980, and I remember very well the 
Gramm-Latta budget bill that passed the House of Representatives in 
1981. That was Senator Gramm, a Democrat, working with Congressman 
Latta, a Republican, to basically pass President Reagan's economic 
budget, a phenomenal accomplishment; it laid the guidelines for 
reducing and changing taxes. The maximum tax rate actually, in 1981, 
was 70 percent; 6 years later it was 28 percent--a phenomenal 
achievement. Some might disagree with it, but it was a phenomenal 
achievement. And it was due, in great part, to the leadership of Phil 
Gramm.
  So every once in a while we have the privilege of serving with 
someone who can make a real difference. And Senator Gramm has done 
that. He did it in the House. He has done it in the Senate. He has made 
accomplishments. He has made legislation. He has angered his opponents, 
but I think in all cases, his adversaries or his opponents, while they 
may have disagreed with him on the issue, had to respect him for his 
conviction, for his commitment, for his effectiveness. I respect that.
  Many of us made tributes to Senator Wellstone. We regret the tragedy 
of his death. But we respected his commitment. Likewise, I can tell 
you, I know Senator Wellstone would say he would have to respect 
Senator Phil Gramm. He did not agree with him--he agreed with him very 
little--but he had to respect him. One of the great things about the 
Senate is that we can disagree on issues, but we can have respect and 
admiration for people who have convictions and commitments, and, on 
occasion, when they prove the effectiveness of that to actually change 
law.
  Most of us remember the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act 
that passed in 1985 and was basically reaffirmed in 1987. It gave us 
caps and targets and rescissions, and so on. That is still basically 
part of our budget law today. I have had the pleasure of serving with 
Senator Gramm on the Budget Committee for many years. Serving on the 
Budget Committee is a thankless task, but he has been a leader within 
the Budget Committee. He is a person who has believed in budgets, a 
person who has believed in discipline, and he was able to make that 
law.
  If you look at the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Service Modernization 
Act, in 1998, again, he proved he could work with Democrats and 
Republicans to make significant revisions of law. He did that from his 
position as chairman of the Banking Committee.
  Today we are debating homeland security, and he is one of the 
principal authors of the President's homeland security bill, which I 
hope and pray we will finish tomorrow, and, again, in large part 
because of his leadership, and also the leadership of Senator Thompson, 
who, regrettably, also is retiring from the Senate.
  So we are losing some great Members who I hate to see leave. But, 
likewise, I would just like to say it has been a pleasure and a 
privilege to work with, in my opinion, one of the most effective, one 
of the most outstanding, Senators I have had the pleasure of knowing in 
my Senate tenure.
  It has been a pleasure to have Senator Gramm join me on the Senate 
floor. He has sat right behind me for the last 18 years. He has made a 
monumental contribution to this country and to his State of Texas.
  I am very happy for both Senator Gramm and his lovely wife Wendy and 
their family. I wish them every success. I am confident they will enjoy 
every success. Senator Gramm is an outstanding leader who has made 
invaluable contributions to make our country better. He has made the 
State of Texas better and he has made our country better. I thank him 
very much for his commitment, his effectiveness, and his public 
service.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for 
his remarks about the remarkable Phil Gramm. And I would like to 
attempt to make some comments upon his leaving us. My abilities are 
inadequate because he is, indeed, a very special American and human 
being.
  Don has delineated a number of his historic achievements: with the 
budget, with health care, with homeland security, and so many others. 
But there are a lot of qualities about Phil that are important.
  He has told us often, particularly after the untimely death of Paul 
Coverdell, that we should tell those we love that we love them, that we 
ought not to wait. I don't know if I have said that directly to him, 
but I love Phil Gramm. I have loved him virtually since I have come to 
this body. He has consistently been, to me, the most principled, 
interesting, and courageous battler for America I have ever seen. I 
have said on many occasions, recognizing the poor grammar, that Phil 
Gramm is our ``most invaluable Senator.'' By that I mean he is the one 
this body could least do without. I truly believe that.
  This body will be diminished by his leaving. He has been a force--a 
force--for the best of American values. First

[[Page 22865]]

and foremost, Phil Gramm has been a champion for freedom. He has never 
doubted, as have many of his former colleagues in the academy, the 
validity of the American dream. He has studied history, traveled 
widely, and read much. His experience and learning have only confirmed 
his belief in the American ideal of democracy, freedom, and free 
enterprise. He knows it works. He knows this has been the system that 
has made America the envy of the world.
  As a patriot, and in possession of this important truth, he has given 
his total effort to preserving and extending our brilliant heritage. 
From the time he gets up until the time he goes to bed, he fights for 
these great values of America. He has done so with more purity of 
purpose and depth of understanding than any I have known. Yes, he can 
compromise, and he does on occasion, but his compromises are always 
focused on whether or not the deal is best for America. Will it further 
freedom? That tends to be his test.
  First and foremost, Phil Gramm fully comprehends the greatness and 
uniqueness of America. And his life has been directed with incredible 
fidelity toward its preservation and enhancement.
  I recall one of the great trips I have taken in the Senate. It was 
CODEL Gramm to Europe. Phil insisted we stop at Normandy and examine 
that scene of carnage and courage. On another occasion, we visited the 
Flanders Cemetery, and Phil read us the great poem: ``On Flanders 
Fields.'' We could not leave, he said, until we laid a wreath at the 
Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. We also carefully examined the battlefield 
at Point du Hoc on the Normandy coast. Phil showed us, with great 
pride, where the brave Texans scaled and took that great fortified 
height at Point du Hoc, a key moment in the D-Day victory.
  Phil Gramm, with great clarity, has seen his battles for freedom in 
this Congress--absent, of course, the physical danger of war--in the 
same way. He sees his role as a soldier for freedom, and that he has 
been. Indeed, he has been a glorious warrior for freedom.
  Our heritage of liberty has always been endangered by hostile outside 
enemies, ignorance, corruption, and political whims of the moment 
within. Phil Gramm has stood in the breach and, in the same vein as his 
beloved Texans at Normandy, he has carried the battle to the enemies of 
freedom. Time and again, he has staked it all--put his career and his 
reputation on the line--for those ideals.
  He has been blessed with a great partner in his glorious struggle to 
enhance the American dream--Wendy Gramm. Everyone who knows Wendy loves 
her. And so does Phil. They are an unlikely pair: the loud Phil and the 
small, brilliant, and soft-spoken Wendy. Surely, it could only have 
been a match made in Heaven. Wendy's balance, her integrity, and her 
vision for America, which she so deeply shares with Phil, make them one 
of America's great couples.
  Thirdly, we cannot discuss his career without considering his 
effectiveness in advocacy. With an economist's ability to see the big 
picture, Phil has an unsurpassed ability to demolish small minded 
proposals. His skill in debate is legendary. I have not seen his equal 
in my tenure in this body. No one gets to the core of the matter better 
or can put the complex in layman's terms more effectively than Phil 
Gramm--no one. Some are good at spin, but Phil Gramm does not spin. He 
analyzes. He distills arguments, and he puts them to the test of 
rigorous thought. He reduces them to their simplest form and then 
demonstrates with his powerful mind and verbal skill how such proposals 
either further or constrict the American way.
  Phil, though quite frank and blunt, could get away with comments few 
others could. Many of our colleagues have quoted from Phil some of his 
remarkable comments. He made a very important speech on economic 
relations between the United Kingdom and the United States when we were 
in Europe. He expressed concern about the UK's move toward Europe. He 
recognized our historic relationships between our countries, and he 
urged them to join NAFTA. The speech made headlines all over Europe. It 
was a magnificent address. He knew it was important when he delivered 
it. He delivered it entirely without notes. I was very proud of him.
  During the course of it, he noted the objections made by certain 
Europeans to American beef, much of which comes from Texas, of course, 
because of their fear of growth hormones. As an aside, he noted:

       Maybe you need to eat more of our beef. It could keep you 
     from giving up your sovereignty.

  His ability to demolish the conceit of the left that government can 
provide Americans more and better goods and services than the private 
sector is also unsurpassed. His advocacy for free trade is unsurpassed. 
Phil believes in the concept of truth. He respects truth, and he 
battles to always appeal to objective truth. Thus he is not a 
spinmeister. He is a Texas straight shooter.
  He will challenge an opponent's flawed core principles even when it 
may not be politically correct to do so. He will not just dance around 
the issue. He goes right to the heart of the matter, with integrity and 
courage. A few are taken aback by his directness, but most respect his 
honesty even if they disagree. And he has never allowed debate to ruin 
friendships.
  Still, Phil Gramm does not take the future of America lightly. It is 
not just a matter of debate with him. It is not a matter of polls. He 
works to prevail on issues important to this country's future. This is 
not an intellectual exercise. It is in a different way as important to 
him as our victories in the past have been on the battlefield. His 
constant goal has been to make America better.
  Perhaps you think I overstate the case, but I don't think so. I think 
he is a special, glorious warrior for the American way of life. And why 
should I not say here what I have said privately; that is, that a true 
recording of history will list him as one of the half dozen great 
Senators of the past century. This warrior for freedom will not cease 
when he leaves this body. Who knows, he may do more good from the 
outside than from the inside.
  What we do know, however, is that while he was here, his 
contributions to America and to liberty were truly magnificent. I have 
been honored to know Phil Gramm and to have been his friend. I will 
miss him. This Senate will miss him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. LOTT. I understand the Senator from Alabama has some other 
remarks he would like to make. I appreciate his allowing me to proceed 
between the remarks he just made on Senator Gramm and others he will be 
speaking on momentarily. One of them is the person I want to commend, 
but I can't do that without thanking Senator Sessions for what he had 
to say about Senator Phil Gramm.
  I have had so much to say about him over the past month, I won't 
repeat it here. I have already made some remarks on the floor and had a 
chance last week at the retirement dinner to talk about him. He 
certainly will be greatly missed. He is such a talented, intelligent, 
persistent but delightful person. He has been a great Senator, great 
Congressman. He has a very large record of which he can be proud. I 
have worked with him in the House when he was a Democrat, in the House 
when he was a Republican, and in the Senate.
  There are a lot of bills that would not have passed, a lot of issues 
would not have been properly handled if he had not been willing to take 
the time, dig into the substance, and get them done. But they are great 
bills, great laws that have his name on them: Gramm-Latta, the first 
budget of the Reagan years; and Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, which was a 
budget restraint mechanism he put in place in the 1980s here in the 
Senate; and Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the reform bill on financial services 
that was passed a couple years ago, and many others. But I took the 
time recently to add up bills or issues that I knew he was involved in 
just over the last 2 years that would have been much more expensive if 
they had

[[Page 22866]]

passed, would have been hugely expensive. He probably has saved the 
taxpayers over the past 2 years somewhere close to $1 trillion, 
certainly in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
  There might be those who say we should have spent that money. Well, 
you can argue that, but I can show direct cases where he has helped 
influence legislation or stopped legislation that would have been very 
costly to working taxpayers in America.
  I thank Senator Sessions for what he had to say today.


                     TRIBUTE TO R.J. ``DUKE'' SHORT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon before the Senate 
adjourns for the year to recognize the extraordinary contributions of 
an individual who is not a Senator but who, in addition to having been 
a long time staff member here, is one of the Chamber's most beloved 
individuals, I believe. That is R.J. ``Duke'' Short or, as Senator 
Thurmond would call him, ``Duke Short,'' which is pretty hard to 
understand if you don't know what he is actually saying.
  My colleagues on both sides of the aisle know well that Duke has 
served for the past decade as chief of staff to the legendary Senator 
Thurmond, who is retiring next year at the age of 100. Duke has served 
our ``centennial Senator'' with incredible ability and grace. His 
judgment, his demeanor, and his knowledge on both the ways and 
traditions of this Chamber have impressed me. I have actually gone to 
him and asked for advice and made sure he knew what we were thinking 
about doing and making sure Senator Thurmond was comfortable with that.
  I know many Senators have gone to Duke and sought his counsel as one 
of our longest serving and most effective staff members.
  In so many ways Duke has been the Senate's unelected 101st Senator, I 
believe. The trust Senator Thurmond puts in him is obvious to anyone 
who has watched the two of them interact over the years. Duke is 
Strom's most constant companion, his closest and most trusted adviser 
and, I believe, his dearest friend. Theirs is not the usual 
relationship of a Senator and staffer. It is more like a father and 
son.
  I know that Duke has had opportunities to go do other things, but at 
the urging or at the request of Senator Thurmond, he stayed. And he is 
going to stay with Senator Thurmond to the last day the Senator is 
here.
  Even though they have been close on a personal basis, Duke Short has 
not misunderstood his role or stepped beyond the boundaries into the 
role of an elected official. He has always had a clear understanding of 
his responsibilities and, most importantly, where his job ends and an 
elected official's begins. It takes a person of extraordinary integrity 
and incredible common sense to be able to juggle both the role and the 
responsibilities that Duke Short has shouldered, and I can say without 
hesitation or equivocation: Well done, Duke. He should be very proud of 
his service to the Senator, to the Senate, and to his country.
  By the way, there is something more to his career than his service to 
Senator Thurmond and the Senate. He served in the Army's prestigious 
82nd Airborne. Then he came to the Senate as a staffer in 1974, where 
he served as a senior investigator for the Subcommittee on Internal 
Security.
  He rose quickly through the ranks, later serving as chief 
investigator of the full Senate Judiciary Committee where he oversaw 
literally hundreds of judicial nominations and helped shepherd through 
the confirmations of Chief Justices and Associate Justices who now sit 
on the Supreme Court. To this day, he is remembered fondly by judges 
and justices all across the Nation as the individual with whom they 
worked most closely and who was always courteous and wise in his 
counsel as to how they should conduct themselves during the 
confirmation process.
  As in his other duties in the Senate, Duke performed in the 
confirmation arena with the greatest dignity and integrity. Many of you 
may be surprised to know that Duke Short had a life before even his 
military service and before coming to the Senate. He was a U.S. 
Treasury Department agent and received numerous awards for 
distinguished service and assistance to our Nation's Federal, State, 
and local law enforcement officers and officials.
  But it wasn't always the law enforcement, investigations, or 
government. He also originally was a chiropractor. That was his 
original profession. He is a graduate of the Palmer College of 
Chiropractic with the degree of Doctor of Chiropractic. Maybe there was 
some other role he performed for the Senator that we didn't know about.
  What an interesting career this gentleman has had. He is an alumnus 
of North Georgia College and the recipient of South Carolina's most 
distinguished civilian award--the Order of the Palmetto. He is, of 
course, most fortunate to be married to Dee, a charming lady whom we 
will miss along with Duke when they go on to their next career.
  I know my colleagues join me in wishing Duke good luck and our best 
wishes as he leaves the Senate in January at the conclusion of Senator 
Thurmond's record-setting term.
  We will miss Duke's good humor and his style. He is the epitome of a 
Southern gentleman. He leaves this institution with a marvelous record. 
Too often we commend each other and we talk about the great deeds of 
Senators, and not enough attention is given to loyal staff members who 
serve in this body and in this room and on committee staffs and on 
personal staffs. But Duke Short could not leave without proper 
recognition of his service.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Republican 
leader for those comments about Duke Short. I likewise want to say 
something about him and didn't know that he intended to make those 
remarks.
  Duke has been a friend of mine for 20 years. I have admired him 
greatly. He is the kind of person who comes along and reaffirms your 
faith in basic democracy, basic decency of the human race. After 30 
years of service in the Senate as a senior staff member, he will be 
leaving.
  Our Nation--and particularly the State of South Carolina--owes Duke 
Short a great debt of gratitude for his many years of distinguished and 
able public service in the Senate. As my colleagues well know, he 
served for many years as chief of staff to our legendary Strom 
Thurmond, who retires next month at the age of 100, after more than 47 
years of service in this Chamber.
  Over the years he has worked with Senator Thurmond Duke has earned a 
reputation as someone who always conducted himself with the utmost 
integrity and honesty. Given great authority--perhaps more than almost 
any other staff member in the Senate--he always dedicated himself to 
the highest principles of public service and demonstrated an 
uncompromising devotion to his mentor and boss, Strom Thurmond.
  There is, among the world's cynics, a belief that the longer men and 
women remain in positions of public trust, the more they fall victim to 
the vagaries of power and influence. Duke Short stands as a wonderful 
exception to that rule, an example of truly unselfish public service, 
whether as a Federal agent or in the Army, a man who dedicated his life 
to things bigger than himself and found, in turn, enormous satisfaction 
in the giving.
  In his years in the Senate--at least the ones I have been privileged 
to witness--Duke Short has earned more than just satisfaction from a 
job well done. He has earned, I believe, the respect, admiration, and 
friendship of every Senator in this body. In so many ways, he was one 
of us--a Member of the Senate family who never forgot that the only 
real power in politics is that which we hold from the public, and his 
only reason for service was to serve his Senator.
  Duke came to the U.S. Senate in 1974 as a senior committee 
investigator. It was the beginning of a long and extraordinary 
partnership between him and Senator Thurmond. When Strom became 
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1980, Duke was appointed 
chief investigator and, in that

[[Page 22867]]

capacity, he oversaw and coordinated the confirmation of Chief Justice 
William Rehnquist, Associate Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, 
Kennedy, and Thomas. He became the Senator's chief of staff nearly a 
decade ago and has served in that capacity ever since. All of us came 
to rely on Duke's judgment, his unerring sense of fair play and, of 
course, his uncanny ability to always represent the wishes of his boss, 
Senator Thurmond.
  Prior to coming to the Senate, Duke served the Nation in other 
important ways. He was a member of the Army's prestigious 82nd Airborne 
Division and a respected U.S. Treasury Department agent. His 
contributions to law enforcement are legend within South Carolina and 
throughout the Nation. He has been a recipient of numerous national, 
regional, and State awards from law enforcement associations, and he 
was presented in 1990 with the State of South Carolina's highest 
civilian award, the Order of the Palmetto.
  When Senator Thurmond was chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, Duke served as a close adviser on a wide range of issues 
from preparedness to nuclear arms control. Once again, he earned the 
respect of the Nation's highest officers and service chiefs, in 
addition to Cabinet members and the national security staffs of several 
Presidents.
  Duke Short is one of those rare staff members whose expertise and 
judgment are called upon in a variety of settings. Through it all, he 
also demonstrated more than just a vast technical knowledge of 
different issues; he impressed us all with his deep and abiding love of 
and respect for the institutions of the Senate, as well as the vital 
importance of the legislative oversight process.
  In all these arenas, Duke Short distinguished himself as an 
individual of rare humility. Working closely with Presidents, Cabinet 
members, Senators, Justices of the Supreme Court, and even foreign 
leaders, Duke's style always managed to disarm, to respectfully inform 
and, taking a page out of Strom Thurmond's book, to politely and 
diplomatically move situations to where the people of South Carolina 
benefited most.
  Finally, Duke is fortunate in one other area. He is married to an 
exceptional lady, Dee, who is truly the apple of his eye and one of the 
great inspirations of his life. Duke and Dee Short have always managed 
to light up any social and business event they attended.
  Mr. President, the Senate will miss Duke Short's leadership, but 
individually I believe each of us will miss our friend, Duke Short. In 
an era of increasing rancor and incivility in public life, Duke Short's 
easygoing manner, his lighthearted humor and unswerving loyalty to 
country and friends will be sorely missed.
  On behalf of a grateful Senate, thank you, Duke, for your good work 
and good will. May God continue to bless you and your fine family.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, for the past several decades, serving one 
of the United States Senate's most legendary figures--Senator Strom 
Thurmond of South Carolina--has been Robert J. Short. I rise today to 
pay tribute to the man we in the Senate fondly know as ``Duke Short.''
  Duke is to be commended for his fine work and years of dedication to 
our Country. When I first arrived in Washington, DC., in January of 
1977, Senator Thurmond was my senior on the Senate Judiciary Committee. 
As I settled in to my new role on the Judiciary Committee, I came to 
know and respect Duke, a bright and eager individual who was working at 
the time as Chief Investigator on the Committee.
  Duke had first come to work in the Senate in 1974, and until 1976, he 
served as a Senior Investigator on the Senate Subcommittee on Internal 
Security. From 1976-1989, he was the Chief Investigator on the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary. He has served as Chief of Staff and 
Administrative Assistant to President Pro Tempore Emeritus Senator 
Strom Thurmond since 1989.
  Throughout the course of Duke's work in the Senate, he has assisted 
in the confirmations of literally hundreds of district and circuit 
court nominees, and of every sitting Supreme Court Justice. He played a 
key role in assisting the Judiciary Committee in its inquiry in the 
1960's into motorcycle gang violence, as well as many other important 
matters. He has developed a remarkable wealth of knowledge about the 
Senate as an institution, and is widely respected by Senators past and 
present on both sides of the aisle.
  Duke has been recognized throughout his distinguished career with 
many prestigious awards, too numerable to mention here, but most 
recently including a Reserve Officers Association Appreciation Award in 
2000, an FBI Director's Appreciation Award and the Order of the 
Palmetto--the State of South Carolina's highest award, in 2001. This 
year, Duke received the ACA's Third Annual Patients' Champion Award.
  Duke's career has been characterized by service to our great Country, 
not only in his work for the Senate for nearly thirty years, but in his 
earlier service in the U.S. Army with the 82nd Airborne Division, and 
as a special agent in the Intelligence Division of the Department of 
the Treasury.
  Duke Short has served Senator Thurmond, South Carolinians, and his 
country well, with the spirit and endless dedication of a true patriot. 
We will sorely miss him in the United States Senate and wish him all 
the best in his retirement.


                       Tribute to Strom Thurmond

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will now take the opportunity to pay 
tribute to the senior Senator from South Carolina, the Honorable Strom 
Thurmond. 
  The accomplishments of this man in his nearly 100 years of life, are 
truly amazing. All of his continuous years of public service to our 
country illustrate that Senator Thurmond's life has put the service of 
his country first. Born on December 5, 1902, in Edgefield, SC, he 
graduated from Clemson College, now Clemson University, in 1923. He 
studied law under his father.
  For 8 years, he served as the town attorney, and he also served as a 
South Carolina State senator.
  A true patriot, he joined the U.S. Army Reserve as a second 
lieutenant in 1924. He landed in Normandy on D-Day with the 82nd 
Airborne Division during World War II. He had been a judge. He was in 
his forties. They did not really want him to join the Army at the time 
the war broke out. He insisted that he be allowed to do so and walked 
away, as some would say, old enough to know better. But he ended up in 
Great Britain preparing for Normandy and the invasion with the 82nd, 
and he again volunteered. He volunteered to be on the glider force that 
would fly in behind enemy lines at the time of the D-Day invasion.
  He got into one of those gliders. They are pulled off by bombers, and 
let go. Hopefully the plane lands safely. He was asked one time: How 
was the landing, Strom?
  He said: All I can say is I didn't have to open the door; you could 
walk out the side.
  None of these landings were safe. It was a highly dangerous mission. 
He volunteered in his midforties to do that. He stayed until the end of 
the war. I asked him if he stayed to the end. He said yes, until 
Germany surrendered in combat and he was put on a train heading toward 
the Pacific when Japan surrendered. He earned 18 decorations, medals, 
and awards, including the Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, Bronze 
Star for Valor, and the Purple Heart, among others.
  His political career flourished when he was elected Governor. In 
1948, he decided to run for President of the United States as a States 
rights candidate. He carried four States and received 39 electoral 
votes, the largest independent electoral vote in U.S. history.
  However, the most memorable moment, I guess, came when he was elected 
to the Senate in 1954 as a write-in candidate. In the Senate, the 
highest office ever to be elected by a write-in, I understand, in the 
Senate, Strom Thurmond served on several committees. He has been a 
fixture on the Armed Services Committee on which I serve and where he 
has with constancy of purpose fought for a strong America

[[Page 22868]]

and for our veterans. He served as chairman of this committee from 1995 
to January of 1999 and was bestowed the great honor of being named 
chairman emeritus in 1999. Serving with Senator Thurmond on this 
committee was a great learning experience.
  I am convinced his combat experience provided him with an excellent 
background to understand the intricacies of our military and the need 
of this Nation to be strong and avoid war but to win it, if necessary.
  He has helped lead our effort in this Nation to victory in the cold 
war, to defeat and challenge head-on godless, totalitarian communism, a 
force incompatible with American values. He never faltered. He stayed 
the course throughout the entire cold war. He celebrated its victory.
  He never was among those souls who waned, who blamed America first, 
who always thought America was at fault and causing the problems in the 
world.
  His career was marked by determination, surely based on personal 
experience with war, to never have our soldiers outgunned in war. This 
was a magnificent service to our country, of historical importance, and 
in which he played a key role.
  Additionally, I have had the pleasure to serve with Senator Thurmond 
on the Judiciary Committee where he has been a member since 1967. He 
served as chairman from 1981 to 1987 and chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights from January to June 
of 2001. Coming from a lineage of law study and being a former judge, 
Senator Thurmond has cherished his role on this committee and continues 
to work to promote the rule of law and assure quality judges are 
appointed to Federal courts.
  He has been a champion of the rule of law on the Judiciary Committee 
for 35 years. Yes, he has changed many of his views over the years. He 
came to see segregation was wrong, that it hurt African Americans, 
whites, and it hurt America. Still, his classical view that the law is 
sacred, that it must be followed, never wavered.
  His leadership in passing the Federal sentencing guidelines was 
perhaps the greatest change in criminal law in the entire last century. 
It was enacted to equalize sentencing--those who commit the same crime 
serve the same time--and it abolished parole. He was a tower of 
strength in the battle to bring back respect for law enforcement, to 
provide rights to crime victims, and to crack down on criminals.
  As a former prosecutor, I am convinced the great battles he led in 
the 1980s--sentencing guidelines, abolishing parole, allowing for the 
denial of bail in certain circumstances--were historic steps that 
stimulated the strong efforts by State law enforcement to break the 
back of the surging crime rates of the sixties and seventies and 
resulted in substantial reduction in crime.
  Longer prison sentences for repeat and dangerous criminals have saved 
thousands of innocent lives. People have not been murdered because 
dangerous criminals have been apprehended and locked up. No man gave 
more steadfast leadership to this change than Strom Thurmond. Indeed, 
he appointed the first chairman of the Sentencing Guideline Commission 
who did a remarkable job, or at least he sought the appointment of 
Judge Wilkins from South Carolina.
  One of the great memories I have of spending time with Senator 
Thurmond was when he asked me, a new Senator, to accompany him on a 
trip to China in 1997. On this trip, we had some time to climb the 
Great Wall of China. Senator Thurmond was the oldest person ever to 
climb the Great Wall unassisted, and it was quite a climb. His ability 
to put situations in perspective is illustrated by the fact that upon 
reaching the top of the wall, he said: This is a big wall. Let's go. Up 
early to exercise, dining late often, as we did on the trip, he did not 
flag, leaving the rest of us in his wake.
  Though he is nearing the century mark, his determination to fulfill 
his service is remarkable. Just this past week, we had the elections of 
the Republican leadership. Senator Thurmond was there at 9 a.m. for the 
elections. Then we had our lunch with the Republican Policy Committee 
while last-minute issues were discussed, and he attended that. That 
afternoon, the Defense authorization bill was up for debate and 
passage. He was one of the few Senators to be in the Chamber, and only 
at 15 minutes till 6, when he was sure no votes would be held that 
night--which he asked me to confirm was accurate--did he leave. It was 
a long, hard day.
  That is typical of his commitment to service. His fierce commitment 
to America and the Senate is legendary. During his service from 1994 to 
2000 as President pro tempore of the Senate, he was consistently on 
time every morning to open the Senate, conduct the Pledge of 
Allegiance, and introduce the Chaplain for invocation. He knew the 
importance of his office, and he did not fail in that responsibility.
  It has been a monumental career, a life almost larger than life. 
Strom Thurmond has set a high standard for duty, service, and country. 
It has been my honor to know and serve with him. He is a true 
southerner, a true American, and a true patriot.
  Strom Thurmond will be forever remembered as a man who for a century 
was a vigorous proponent of strong national defense, a sound legal 
system composed of judges who follow, not make, law, and justice for 
victims of crime, and stiff punishment for wrongdoers.
  One of his most enduring qualities, a quality that undoubtedly is a 
factor in his longevity, is his positive view of life, his optimism, 
his cheerfulness, and positive leadership which still are remarkable 
and continue to this day.
  I am sure there have been times when he did not feel well, but his 
hearty greetings never changed. I have enjoyed hearing him call to me 
and say: How's the king of Alabama doing today?
  Having watched his leadership for 6 years now in the Senate, I am 
convinced his positive leadership and character are major factors in 
his success.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Tribute to Senator Hutchinson

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, Senator Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas, one 
of our colleagues, will soon be leaving us. I thank him for his service 
to his State and also to our country.
  For the last 6 years, I have had the pleasure of working with Senator 
Hutchinson. He is a neighbor; he is a friend. I have gotten to know him 
very well. He served on my whip team. He is a very energetic and 
dynamic person who I think served his State and our country very well.
  He served in the Arkansas State House of Representatives for 8 years. 
He served in the U.S. House for 4 years. I got to know him when he 
served in the statehouse, and I was very impressed with him. Actually, 
his congressional district was adjacent to that of Oklahoma. So I got 
to know him then. When he came to the Senate, I asked him if he would 
serve on my whip team, and he did. We became very good friends. He is a 
very energetic and committed person who did an outstanding job in the 
Senate. He is also a very intelligent and diligent Member.
  He served on the Armed Services Committee and the HELP Committee and 
did a fantastic job. I worked with him. I was chairman of the task 
force dealing with the Patients' Bill of Rights and then was made 
chairman of the conference on the Patients' Bill of Rights. Senator Tim 
Hutchinson was there all the time, trying to pass a good and affordable 
Patients' Bill of Rights, one that would not bankrupt employers and one 
that would help provide good rights for patients all across this 
country. It has been a pleasure and privilege to serve with Tim 
Hutchinson in the Senate.
  In the Senate we have the opportunity to work with outstanding 
individuals. Tim Hutchinson is one of those

[[Page 22869]]

individuals. The election did not work out for him, but I am very 
optimistic that his future is very bright indeed. I thank him for his 
service to this body. I think he has made the Senate a better place, 
and I compliment him for his service.


                   Tribute to Senator Frank Murkowski

  Mr. President, I also wish to comment on our retiring colleague, 
Senator Frank Murkowski. Senator Murkowski and I were elected together 
in 1980, so we have been very good friends for the last 22 years.
  I have served with Senator Murkowski for the last 22 years on the 
Energy Committee. For the last several years, he has been the chairman 
of the Energy Committee. Talk about persistence, about dedication, and 
about a person who has really served his State of Alaska and served our 
country well; it is Senator Frank Murkowski. As a result of his 
leadership, many of us have gone to Alaska.
  Senator Stevens and Senator Murkowski love their State. We all love 
our States, but they love their State with great enthusiasm and are 
very successful, forceful advocates for their parochial interests, as 
well as for our country.
  Senator Murkowski was thinking about how he could improve his State, 
but he was also thinking about our national energy posture. Frankly, we 
find ourselves in very difficult shape; we are importing the majority 
of our oil, and it only gets worse. He has tried to reverse that trend.
  I compliment him for his leadership on the Energy Committee. He was a 
very effective and forceful chairman of the Energy Committee and served 
our country very well there.
  I also had the pleasure of serving with him on the Finance Committee. 
He is a person who is a very good friend of taxpayers, a person who 
really wanted to grow our economy, and a person who I think was 
recognized by his State for his outstanding leadership. He was recently 
elected as Governor of the State of Alaska, and I have no doubt he will 
be an outstanding Governor of that great State.
  So my compliments to Senator Frank Murkowski and to his lovely wife 
Nancy. They are very good friends of ours, a very outstanding 
senatorial couple who have made the Senate a better place and who make 
our country a better place. I thank and compliment him for his 22 years 
of service in the Senate and look forward to working with him as the 
next Governor of the State of Alaska.
  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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Tribute to Senator Tim Hutchinson

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for 
his kind remarks about Senator Tim Hutchinson. He was one of my closest 
friends. He and Randi are fine people. We served together on the Armed 
Services Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee. I saw him perform day after day with fidelity to the 
principles that he campaigned on when he came to the Senate. He fought 
for what he believed in. He was one of the most able advocates in the 
Chamber. I do not think you could name on the fingers of your hand any 
Senator who could compete with him insofar as advocating positions on 
the floor. He stood for the great values of America.
  While on the Armed Services Committee, I remember one battle he got 
into as Personnel Subcommittee chairman. He made great progress in 
regard to the problem of the great educational institutions in America, 
colleges and high schools, that barred military recruiters from coming 
on campus to recruit personnel for a career in the military. It is 
unthinkable to me that that would occur, but it happens in this 
country.
  Indeed, the very liberties we have that provide for education and 
allow people to debate and disagree are protected by our military, and 
it denied them the right to come on campus to seek people to serve, 
which is really unbelievable. He fought that battle and reached an 
agreement eventually that essentially achieved the end of that 
unconscionable procedure.
  He also presided on that subcommittee during consideration of a 
consistent series of pay raises for our men and women in the military. 
We have now gotten to the point where we are seeing our military get 
paid a far more decent wage than they were a few years ago.
  On the HELP Committee, he was a prime advocate for the President's No 
Child Left Behind bill. He and I sponsored legislation called Dollars 
to the Classroom. We intended to put as much money to those teachers 
where learning occurs to try to enhance those magical moments when a 
teacher and a child come together and learning occurs. That was our 
vision, that is what we fought for, and No Child Left Behind had a lot 
of that in it.
  As Senator Nickles said, Senator Hutchinson fought for and was a 
great advocate during the battle over the Patients' Bill of Rights. He 
was a very responsible and articulate spokesman on some complex issues 
on which Senator Nickles led us as we carried on that debate. I do 
appreciate him remembering and commenting on the extraordinary 
contributions of Tim Hutchinson. We are going to miss him. I will miss 
him personally. His leadership will be missed. I know he will have a 
great future in front of him.


                   Tribute to Senator Frank Murkowski

  Mr. President, it is a sad day to think Frank and Nancy Murkowski 
will not be with us. I admire them so much.
  We have had the occasion, my wife Mary and I, to spend time with 
them. I have come to respect him. I was in Alaska not too many years 
ago and passed his home in Fairbanks and talked to some of his 
neighbors, all of whom had such a high opinion of him.
  He was a champion for energy. He understood that energy is good, not 
bad. He understood we need a great capacity, at the lowest possible 
cost, so American citizens can carry on their travel, heat and cool 
their homes at the lowest possible cost. Keeping energy costs down is 
important. He knew and warned us repeatedly that we were becoming too 
dependent on Middle East oil and energy and we needed to enhance our 
domestic production. He convinced me and almost the majority of this 
Senate that Alaska and the ANWR reserve could produce large amounts of 
oil with no threat to the environment, touching only the smallest 
portion of that vast reserve. I admired him for that and I supported 
him.
  He also supported one of the programs that I believe was extremely 
environmentally friendly, the bill we call the CARA Act, which would 
allow revenue from offshore oil and gas wells in the Gulf and wherever 
they would drill to be plowed back into environmental programs in our 
country. It would provide a constant and guaranteed source of funds for 
environmental benefit. It was a good and forward-looking bill, far more 
historic, with greater potential for environmental benefits than a lot 
of people understood--although it did certainly have broad support in 
the environmental community.
  It has been a pleasure to serve with Frank. I have been impressed 
with his steadfastness, his constancy of purpose, his understanding 
that your message has to be repeated to break through the sound barrier 
in the country. I admire him and respect him very much. We will be 
missing him. I look forward to having the opportunity to visit Frank 
and Nancy as often as possible when they come back to the capital city 
here as Governor of Alaska.
  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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Homeland Security

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, tomorrow morning the Senate will vote on the

[[Page 22870]]

amendment introduced by Senator Daschle to the homeland security bill. 
This amendment will strike several provisions in the bill that were 
added by the other body in the dark of night without their ever having 
seen the light of day until after they were adopted. I have added my 
name as a cosponsor of the amendment because I was troubled by the 
substance of these last-minute provisions. I was pleased that Senator 
Daschle and Senator Lieberman were taking action to strike the new 
language from the bill. I support the amendment and I hope that other 
Senators will support it, as well.
  I have cosponsored the amendment because I believe the Senate has a 
duty to take the time to improve legislation when it needs improving, 
as it does, obviously. This bill certainly needs improving. I had hoped 
that more Senators would be able to offer their amendments to this 
bill.
  I have heard several of my colleagues expressing concerns about what 
is in the bill, as well as what is not in the bill. I have concerns of 
my own, many of which I have expressed in recent days. I also have 
amendments that could be offered to address these problems, just as 
other Senators have amendments that they had hoped to offer. But here 
we are, consuming all of our time under cloture in consideration of 
this single amendment. The Senators in the minority are keeping us from 
voting on the Daschle amendment until all 30 hours of debate have run. 
The Republican side of the aisle is doing this to prevent other 
amendments from being offered during this time.
  While the administration is pressing hard to avoid other amendments, 
the die was already cast for this bill when the Senate voted last 
Friday to invoke cloture. Caesar crossed the Rubicon on January 11, in 
the year 49 A.D., on the night of January 11. Whether he crossed the 
Rubicon before midnight or after midnight on that night, I don't 
recall; I am not sure I ever knew. It was on that night that he crossed 
the Rubicon. He paused thoughtfully and then he said:

       The die is cast.

  So be it.
  I voted against cloture last week on Friday because I believed that 
there were problems in this bill that should be thoroughly addressed in 
the Senate; that we needed more time to debate those problems and that 
we needed more time in which to offer amendments to the 484-page bill 
that had been dropped on our desks on the morning of last Wednesday. I 
tried to get some of our Democratic colleagues to vote against cloture 
on Friday, so that we would have a little more time in which we 
Senators and our staffs could study that hurriedly-put-together bill, 
hurriedly passed by the other body. I felt that we should not invoke 
cloture on last Friday, that we should take a few more days, study the 
bill, and try to amend it before cloture, as I knew, would finally be 
adopted.
  But my words were to little avail. There was at least one Senator who 
did vote against cloture at my importuning him to do so. And I deeply 
appreciated his willingness to listen and his willingness to vote 
against cloture.
  There were others who were not quite so willing. They listened 
patiently, but they went on their way and voted for cloture. Some of 
them thought that, inasmuch as we would then have 30 hours under 
cloture, we could offer our amendments. But I knew that the entire 30 
hours could be spent on one amendment. I had never seen it done before, 
but it very well could be. I was aware of that. I didn't think it would 
be done, but we have seen it has been done by the Republican minority, 
which has said: This far; no farther. You have offered one amendment, 
that being the Daschle amendment on behalf of himself and Mr. 
Lieberman--you have offered that amendment, and the entire 30 hours 
will be spent on that amendment. You will not have any opportunity to 
offer any other amendment.
  I still believe that there are serious problems in the bill that go 
far beyond the provisions stricken by the Daschle amendment. That was 
not an all-encompassing amendment as far as I was concerned. It was an 
amendment in the right direction but, even with the adoption of the 
amendment, there is going to be a tremendous amount of power shifted to 
the President. He is going to have a full year in which to indicate to 
the rest of us what his plan is for reorganizing, and for organizing 
the new Department. He probably doesn't know at this moment what his 
plan will be. But he has a year, under this bill, to offer his plan. 
And it will, ipso facto, automatically go into effect at some point. 
Congress is out of the loop. Congress will not be asked to approve his 
plan. Congress will only be informed of his plan. That's it. We have no 
further say in the matter.
  So his plan, being a pig in a poke, a plan which we do not know now, 
that plan will at some point go into effect without any further vote on 
the part of Congress. Congress will not be asked to approve it. And 
this bill, which we will pass on tomorrow, will not give Congress the 
right to vote to approve that plan.
  Moreover, an amendment, if I had been able to offer it, to provide 
for congressional approval--that amendment would not have been germane 
under cloture. So we were headed off there. So we have helped to cut 
our own throats, to a degree, by having voted for cloture last Friday.
  I urged Senators last Friday, as I said before, not to vote for 
cloture last week, so we would have more time in which to read and 
study this bill that was dropped suddenly into our laps by the other 
body. I pleaded with this Senate not to shut off debate and limit 
amendments, and 28 other Senators voted with me not to do so.
  There were 29 Senators who voted against it and they were all 
Democrats. Mr. President, 29 Democrats voted against cloture last 
Friday. Only 17 Democrats voted for some cloture. There were other 
Democrats who were absent and not voting and their votes, of course--at 
least four of those Senators would have voted against cloture. That 
would have brought the vote up to 33 votes against cloture, well over 
half the Democratic caucus. So that if only six of the 17 Senators who 
did vote for cloture last Friday had not voted for cloture and voted 
against it, or had not voted for cloture, then there would have only 
been 59 votes for cloture, which would have meant that cloture would 
not have been invoked.
  Sixty-five votes in totality were for cloture. So all that was needed 
to defeat cloture was for six of those Senators who voted for cloture 
to vote against cloture.
  Many of my colleagues last week, as I pleaded with them to vote 
against cloture, reassured me that we would have the opportunity to 
offer amendments after cloture was invoked. But those Members should 
look carefully at where the Senate stands today, because there is an 
important lesson to be learned about the rules of the Senate and the 
effect of cloture on the ability of Senators to offer amendments. Not 
only have Senators been restricted to offering only those amendments 
that are ruled to be germane--and we know that under the cloture rule--
but Senators have been unable to offer any amendments at all, other 
than the amendment introduced by the majority leader.
  Not all Senators could foresee that would happen, but all Senators 
should have known that could happen under the rule. It did happen. So I 
hope the Senators who voted for cloture, some of them at least, will 
have some afterthoughts that will help in the future to remind them 
that we ought not be in such a great hurry to invoke cloture, 
especially on an extremely complicated bill which has been brought to 
our attention in its entirety just within the past few days beginning 
with last Wednesday.
  When I say to Senators that we should not shirk our responsibilities 
as legislators by invoking cloture, especially so quickly, so early on, 
I understand the kind of opportunities that are available under 
cloture, we will all understand this in the future.
  I understand that the rules of the Senate have been used fairly to 
prevent amendments from being offered to the homeland security 
legislation. When I

[[Page 22871]]

hear the arguments that voting for the single amendment that has been 
offered will jeopardize passage of the bill, I understand that such 
arguments were made possible by the vote to invoke cloture.
  The Senate has painted itself, in a way, into a corner, by invoking 
cloture on the Thompson amendment. We have no one to blame but 
ourselves for allowing the administration and the other body to 
characterize this modest amendment as a threat to the passage of 
homeland security legislation. The administration wants to limit any 
amendments to one up-or-down vote so that the administration can argue 
that a vote for this amendment is a vote to ``kill'' the homeland 
security bill. There is simply no basis whatsoever in fact for the 
administration's attempts to politicize this vote by claiming that the 
vote on this amendment by Mr. Daschle and Mr. Lieberman will kill the 
bill.
  This legislation has been introduced for consideration by the Senate, 
and the extent of that consideration should not be confined to a few 
days of debate over whether simply to rubberstamp the legislation so it 
can be sent to the President for his signature.
  If the President wants to insist on getting this bill passed before 
Congress adjourns, he could persuade both Houses of Congress to pass 
bills and work out their differences in conference. Such a conference 
is one which may or may not take very long.
  As a matter of fact, the House could very well accept the amendment, 
if the amendment by Mr. Daschle and Mr. Lieberman should prevail--the 
House could very well accept that amendment, and the bill would go to 
the President.
  For now, I think the Senate should do its job. Senators need to look 
carefully at the bill, do what they can to make improvements before 
voting. And they only have this one chance--vote up or down on the 
Daschle amendment.
  That will help some but not enough. But that might allow some 
Senators in their own good consciences to vote for the bill. As far as 
I am concerned, it is not enough because there would still be a 
tremendous shift of power from the legislative branch to the President. 
And I don't feel like shifting that power to any President--not just 
this one, but in particular this administration with its way of wanting 
to do things in a secretive manner and wanting to run a government out 
of the White House, and not in the full light of day or under the full 
scrutiny of the press and the people.
  I intend to vote against this bill, and I know that a majority of 
Senators will likely vote for it. But whether Senators plan to vote for 
this bill or against it, we should all work to make sure that the 
Senate passes the best possible bill that it can under the 
circumstances. We ought to act responsibly in response to this 
eleventh-hour legislation that did not see the light of day until only 
a few days ago. We should not surrender our duties under the 
Constitution by allowing legislation to be dictated to this Senate in 
an atmosphere of political brinkmanship.
  Senator Daschle's amendment strikes a number of very troubling 
provisions that were added to this bill at the last minute in the hopes 
that the Senate would cave in to the administration's empty rhetoric. 
Senator Daschle and Senator Lieberman have called this bluff, and this 
amendment has cast a high-powered spotlight on language in this bill 
that cannot possibly withstand the light of day and the strict scrutiny 
of time. These shameful provisions could never survive public scrutiny, 
and now that they have been brought into focus, the Senate must ensure 
that they do not survive our consideration.
  So let us see on tomorrow whether or not the Senate has the will and 
the courage to take a strong stand against this power grab. That stand 
can be taken by voting for the Daschle-Lieberman amendment.
  This amendment strikes several provisions in this bill that do not 
deserve to be enacted into law. The first of these provisions in one 
that I have previously addressed, relating to unnecessary and dangerous 
exemptions from the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The language in 
this bill would give new blanket authority to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to exempt advisory committees from existing public disclosure 
and conflict-of-interest rules. These rules already allow exemptions 
for sensitive information relating to national security. This bill 
would allow the Secretary to cloak committee activities behind a veil 
of secrecy, regardless of whether those activities actually involve 
issues of national security.
  I believe that too much secrecy in government is dangerous to our 
civil liberties, and we should not authorize such broad exemptions 
without compelling evidence of the need for unchecked blanket 
authority.
  The President of the United States already has that authority on a 
case-by-case basis. But now we are going to extend it to the Secretary 
of the new Department, and of course he can exercise blanket authority 
if he so wishes.
  If we are to preserve our liberty and the integrity of our 
constitutional system, executive decision making must be subject to 
scrutiny and oversight by the Congress, the media, and the public. I 
support striking this language from the bill, and I thank Senators 
Daschle and Lieberman for bringing it to the attention of the Senate.
  The Daschle amendment also strikes several provisions in this bill 
that protect corporate campaign contributors from lawsuits. The first 
of these provisions would prohibit lawsuits against companies that 
manufacture vaccines by people who have been harmed by those vaccines, 
including children suffering from autism as a result of preservatives 
used in childhood vaccines.
  Another of these liability provisions would enact sweeping tort 
reform for products that are designated as anti-terrorism technologies. 
These provisions would protect companies that manufacture everything 
from gas masks to computer software when their products fail, even when 
the companies know that their products will not work.
  The final liability provision would give immunity to companies 
responsible for providing security screening in airports. The Senate 
rejected similar language last year during its consideration of the 
airline ``bailout'' bill, yet now we are being asked to approve it 
because it has been inserted into politically popular legislation. The 
attempt to slip this provision past the Senate is another example of 
the haste with which this bill has been drafted and considered by this 
Congress. Issues like these liability provisions should be carefully 
scrutinized before they become law, not just rubber-stamped by 
impatient lawmakers looking to put issues behind them and go home.
  Another provision that has already been considered by this Senate 
relates to doing business with companies that have moved their 
headquarters out of the United States to avoid paying U.S. taxes. In 
its consideration of the Lieberman substitute to the homeland security 
bill, the Senate adopted an amendment offered by the late Senator 
Wellstone that prohibited the Secretary of Homeland Security from 
contracting with such companies, unless he needed to do so for national 
security reasons. The Thompson substitute guts the Wellstone amendment 
by allowing the Secretary expanded powers to waive this prohibition to 
prevent the loss of jobs or to save money for the government. The 
Senate should reject this attempt to undermine the will of the Senate 
by restoring the language of Senator Wellstone's amendment to the 
homeland security bill.
  The Thompson substitute also tries to slip in language to delay the 
implementation of new airport security regulations. The Senate enacted 
procedures in last year's airline security bill for the Transportation 
Security Agency to issue regulations for improving security in our 
Nation's airports. The new language in the Thompson substitute would 
modify these procedures by requiring the Transportation Security 
Oversight Board to ratify any regulations before they become effective. 
I see no good reason for this modification, If there is one, the Senate 
should take the time to debate it rather than hastily approving it as 
part of this massive legislation.

[[Page 22872]]

  The final provision that will be stricken by the Daschle-Lieberman-
Byrd amendment is the language directing that a new homeland security 
research center be created at Texas A&M University.
  I don't think the amendment specifically says that, but its 
provisions are such that that particular university would be most 
favored and targeted for location of such a center.
  The amendment removes items from the list of highly specific criteria 
which all but guaranteed that Texas A&M would be the only university 
which would qualify for the new research center.
  Mr. President, striking these provisions from the Thompson amendment 
is a good start. I believe that the Senate should go further in 
fulfilling its constitutional duty to improve this legislation before 
passing this bill. I believe there are many other provisions of this 
bill which should be stricken and begun anew next year.
  In fact, I think we would all be more secure if we put off the whole 
bill and started over next year.
  For example, there is a provision that the President may submit his 
recommendations to Congress and the only thing that Congress can do is 
just at that point agree to his recommendations. The Congress has no 
opportunity to approve or not approve of those recommendations as far 
as this bill is concerned. We might expect a great deal of chaos as 
these 28 agencies are moved into the Department. This will take place 
within the next year. The President has not yet submitted his plan for 
having the agencies moved into the new Department, but his plan will be 
submitted at some point and, ipso facto, will go into effect.
  Under an amendment which I had offered earlier to the homeland 
security measure--that being at that time, I believe, the Lieberman 
bill that came out of the committee of which he is chairman--I had 
offered an amendment to provide for an orderly phase-in of agencies 
into the new Department over a period of a year.
  Under my amendment, the recommendations of the administration would 
have gone to the Lieberman committee and to its counterpart in the 
House of Representatives. And those two committees would have had an 
opportunity, then, to hold hearings and, under expedited procedures, 
could have brought out bills, reported bills, to implement the phasing 
in of agencies into the new Department, with there being three phases, 
of 120 days each, which would have created an orderly process whereby 
these various agencies would have been phased into the new Department.
  Also, the Congress would have been kept in the loop in each case, 
with the Lieberman committee and its counterpart in the House being 
able to hold hearings, call witnesses, vote out bills by expedited 
procedures. Those bills would come to the Senate. They could be called 
up in the Senate under expedited procedures so that there would be no 
filibuster, and those bills would be amended, passed on; and in this 
way the creation of the new Department, with the orderly phasing in of 
the agencies, would occur over the same period of time--1 year--as is 
the case with the current bill.
  As it is, when we pass this bill in the Senate, we are out of the 
loop; we have automatically put ourselves, the Congress, to the 
sidelines. And the President then can do as he wishes. He can submit 
his plan, and that plan would automatically go into effect. Congress 
will be on the sideline. We will have said: Here it is, Mr. President. 
It's all yours. We have no more say in it. It's yours. Just be kind 
enough to let us know what your plans are. That's all we ask. Let us 
know what your plans are.
  But under my amendment, those recommendations would have come to the 
Congress. Congress would have kept itself in the loop. It would have 
been able to maintain oversight. And with each phase, each of the three 
phases, as it passed from the first, to the second, to the third, 
Congress would have benefited by its experience under the first, and 
then under the second, and there would have been an orderly phase-in, 
and with Congress, as I say, retaining its place in the loop.
  But that amendment was opposed even by Mr. Lieberman and, I believe, 
the majority leader. The majority leader I think voted against it. It 
was his right to do so. But Mr. Lieberman, the author of the bill which 
had been reported out by his committee, voted against the amendment. So 
I thought it would have been an improvement to the bill and certainly 
would not have been in derogation of the committee in its work. But 
that amendment was rejected. And there you are. I tried. I failed to 
bring about that improvement. So that is another improvement that I 
think ought to still have been put into the bill that is before us.
  So I have seen the handwriting on the wall. I know this bill will 
probably pass the Senate. Having said that, I believe that the 
amendment by Mr. Daschle and Mr. Lieberman is important because it does 
make some needed improvements to the bill. The Senate has a duty to 
approve at least these minimal proposals, if I may say that about 
them--they are important improvements--before handing over this broad 
grant of power to the executive branch.
  I urge Senators to vote for the Daschle-Lieberman amendment on 
tomorrow morning.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           procurement policy

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the homeland security legislation we have 
been debating takes on many organizational and administrative 
challenges, but one challenge it does not cover fully is in the area of 
information technology. Specifically, I am talking about departmental 
policies and guidelines for purchasing computer software. No doubt, 
effective procurement policies will be essential not just to the sound 
administration of the Department, but also to the successful 
achievement of a number of important policies identified in this 
legislation, including most notably, the ability of law enforcement and 
intelligence agencies to share data and coordinate activities to 
respond to or prevent terror or criminal acts.
  For those sharing and analyzing data electronically, the security of 
the software being utilized, such as database and operating system 
software, is critical. These software technologies are referred to by 
those in the industry as ``information assurance'' technology. 
Information assurance technology is what is needed to assure 
information systems operate effectively, ensure the security of the 
information contained in these systems, and verify the identities of 
those authorized to use these systems. At its most fundamental level, 
information assurance software, for example, includes operating 
systems, database, and user authentication software.
  It should not be a surprise to anyone here that agencies within the 
Federal Government that are responsible for our most sensitive 
information have to rely on information assurance technology. In fact, 
in January of 2000, the National Security Telecommunications and 
Information Systems Security Committee, an entity within the National 
Security Agency, proposed a policy that called on all Government 
agencies to purchase only those commercial-off-the-shelf, or COTS, 
software that had undergone an independent evaluation process that 
tests the security of the software. Toward that goal, the committee 
outlined a specific acquisition policy for those information systems 
critical to national security. This policy--the National Security 
Telecommunications and Information Systems Security Policy #11, or 
NSTISSP #11--states that Federal agencies with information systems 
involved in national security can only purchase commercial information 
assurance software that has been independently evaluated to be secure.
  This sounds a bit technical, but if we take a step back and look at 
this proposed policy as consumers, it makes perfect sense. Today, many 
household items, like our dishwashers, televisions, stereos, and 
computers, have the now famous Underwriters Laboratory Label. This 
label provides consumers with the peace of mind that the products they 
are purchasing have met independent public safety tests.

[[Page 22873]]

  Consumers have been purchasing products with the Underwriters 
Laboratory ``seal of approval'' for more than a century. However, 
businesses large and small, and local, State, and Federal Government 
agencies purchase computer software with no thought given to whether or 
not the software has met some outside measure of security assurance. 
That is an extremely risky proposition. Computer software is essential 
to our Nation's critical infrastructures, including our railroads, 
airports, pipelines, utilities, and financial services. At the 
Government level, information technology is critical to the 
administration of key Federal programs, our homeland defense, and most 
notably, our national security.
  The costs of insecure, vulnerable information systems are real and 
sobering. Computer viruses, like Nimda and Code Red, penetrate, disrupt 
and disable information systems through security holes in software. 
Last year, according to industry estimates, these viruses inflicted $13 
billion in damages on our economy and even incapacitated systems within 
our own Defense Department.
  Fortunately, information technology laboratories exist that perform 
functions similar to the Underwriters Laboratory. Many software 
companies have these independent labs evaluate their products to 
determine if they meet various levels of security assurance. For 
example, the international Common Criteria provides for security 
evaluations that are recognized in 15 countries, including the United 
States, Germany, Canada, and Great Britain. Thus, if a software product 
is certified under the Common Criteria, it is recognized among all 
participating countries. More to the point, this certification is 
designed to validate the security claims made by software companies, 
much like the Underwriters Laboratory validates the safety claims of 
appliance manufacturers. In his book, ``Secrets and Lies'' 
cybersecurity expert Bruce Schneier noted that the Common Criteria is a 
``giant step in the right direction.''
  NSTISSP #11 is the Federal Government's way of saying that for its 
most sensitive national security systems, it is not enough for 
information technology providers to say their products are secure. Now, 
software providers must have independent evaluations to back up their 
claims.
  It is my understanding that the Defense Department is working to 
implement an information assurance acquisition policy based on NSTISSP 
#11. That is an important and positive step, one called for in the 
Defense authorization bill conference report.
  The reason why I am bringing this issue to the attention of my 
colleagues today is because I believe it is an issue that deserves the 
attention of the new Department of Homeland Security. After all, if the 
tragic terrorist attacks of September 11 proved anything, it is that 
our most sensitive information systems in Federal information sharing 
and coordination of strategies will likely take place among those law 
enforcement agencies within and outside of the Homeland Security 
Department. Information sharing and analysis also is likely to occur 
between our law enforcement and intelligence agencies. All of this 
activity requires that the Department of Homeland Security to have 
strong information assurance strategies, including those involving the 
purchase of information assurance systems in the commercial market.
  I see the distinguished chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee 
and manager of the legislation currently pending on the floor. I know 
this is an issue of great interest and concern to him, and I would now 
yield the floor to him for any comments he wishes to make.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Ohio for 
yielding, and I thank him for his comments, which are right on the 
mark. Information assurance will be critical to the new Department of 
Homeland Security, and independent evaluations can be useful tools to 
improve the security of information systems. In fact, information 
assurance is critical to the entire Federal Government and deserves to 
be a key component in any cybersecurity strategy. I look forward to 
seeing this framework for independent software evaluation evolve and 
improve through processes like the National Information Assurance 
Partnership and the Common Criteria.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank the distinguished chair of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee for his comments. I look forward to working with him 
and the new Department of Homeland Security to ensure that the 
Department's information assurance policies include the purchase of 
secure, stable information systems.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I also thank the Senator from Ohio for his comments 
and look forward to working with him, as well.


                   unaccompanied child protection act

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am disappointed that the bill before 
us does not contain in its entirety the Unaccompanied Child Protection 
Act, bipartisan legislation I introduced at the beginning of this 
Congress and that was included as Title XII of the Lieberman substitute 
to H.R. 5005.
  I am pleased, however, that the measure contains one key component of 
that legislation: the transfer of authority over the care and custody 
of unaccompanied alien children to the Office of Refugee Resettlement 
within the Department of Health and Human Services.
  This is key for two reasons: First, we do not want to burden the 
Secretary of Homeland Security with policy issues unrelated to the 
threat of terrorism. The Department will have a huge and important 
mission when this legislation is done and its attention should be 
focused on that mission.
  Second, the federal government has a special responsibility to 
protect the children in its custody. For too long, the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, INS, has not lived up to that responsibility. 
The children's provisions in this legislation is an important first 
step in correcting decades of questionable practices with regards to 
children that come under the agency's watch.
  As I mentioned before, this is an important first step in providing 
protection for unaccompanied alien children. I ask my friend from 
Arizona, who is a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and part of 
the leadership on the other side of the aisle, if he would agree to 
work with me next year to further refine the important reforms relating 
to the treatment of unaccompanied alien children.
  Mr. KYL. I thank my friend from California for her question. I know 
that she has worked long and hard on these issues and that it is her 
work and her dedication that is responsible for the inclusion of the 
children's provisions in the homeland security bill.
  I would further say to my friend from California that while 
additional reforms may be warranted, the legislation before us today 
was primarily a structural bill, not a policy bill. That fact prevented 
the consideration of some of the reforms she has championed from being 
included in this legislation.
  I pledged to work with her in the 108th Congress to help fashion 
legislation that could address some of the issues that had to be left 
out of this measure.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Arizona. You may be 
interested to know that I first became involved in this issue when I 
heard about a young 15-year old Chinese girl who stood before a U.S. 
immigration court facing deportation proceedings. She had found her way 
to the United States as a stowaway in a container ship captured off of 
Guam, hoping to escape the repression she had experienced in her home 
country.
  Although she had committed no crime, the INS sent her to a Portland 
jail, where she languished for seven months. When the INS brought her 
before an immigration judge, she stood before him confused, not 
understanding the proceedings against her. Tears streamed down her 
face, yet she could not wipe them away because her hands were 
handcuffed and chained to her waist.
  While the young girl eventually received asylum in our country, she 
unnecessarily faced an ordeal no child

[[Page 22874]]

should bear under our immigration system. This young Chinese girl 
represents only one of 5,000 foreign-born children who, without parents 
or legal guardians to protect them, are discovered in the United States 
each year in need of protection.
  So you see, this issue calls for clearer policy direction from 
Congress. I thank my friend and look forward to working with him in the 
beginning of the 108th Congress.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the reorganization of our homeland 
security efforts is necessary if we are to achieve a higher level of 
safety for American citizens.
  The bill before us improves our security by combining into a single 
department the federal agencies and programs that today have a role in 
providing homeland security. Those organizations comprise some 170,000 
people. Bringing them together under a single reorganized department 
will enable us to improve coordination of the Government's efforts to 
defend the United States against terrorist attacks.
  By creating the cabinet-level position of Secretary of Homeland 
Security, the bill ensures there will be a leader of this effort, with 
the appropriate authority and responsibility to carry out that mission.
  The creation of a Border and Transportation Security Directorate--
bringing together the Immigration and Naturalization Service from the 
Justice Department, the U.S. Customs Service from the Treasury 
Department, and the newly created Transportation Security 
Administration--will make a single entity responsible for securing our 
border and transportation systems and preventing the entry of 
terrorists into our country.
  The Coast Guard, which also plays an important role in securing our 
borders, will move from the Department of Transportation to the 
Department of Homeland Security. By maintaining the Coast Guard as an 
independent agency reporting directly to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, this bill ensures the Coast Guard will have the resources and 
advocacy it needs to conduct its important security missions as well as 
its other missions, such as search-and-rescue and boating safety.
  This legislation also creates a Directorate of Emergency Preparedness 
and Response, which will coordinate the federal government's response 
to terrorist attacks and major disasters. Combining all the Federal 
Government's emergency response efforts into a single entity will 
improve the Government's coordination with state and local entities in 
preparing for and responding to terrorist attacks.
  The need for this reorganization is critical to our national 
security. Its scope is necessarily quite extensive. If this effort is 
to be effective, the President must have the flexibility to adapt the 
new department as needed to carry out its mission. This bill provides 
him the management flexibility he needs while protecting the rights of 
the Federal workers who will serve in the new department.
  This bill represents to most extensive reorganization of the Federal 
Government in over 50 years. By taking resources from existing 
departments and agencies and placing them in a new organization, it has 
required a very difficult balancing of competing interests and views. 
The success of those efforts is a tribute to those who have worked so 
hard to bring this legislation about.
  The President in particular deserves praise for bringing together a 
wide variety of interests and addressing a variety of concerns about 
the new department. Here in the Senate, Senator Thompson, the ranking 
member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and one of the sponsors of 
the compromise proposal before us now, deserves great credit for his 
efforts to ensure this legislation was both effective and fair. Senator 
Lieberman, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, was one 
of the first to identify the need for this department and to call for 
its creation, and he should be commended for his efforts as well.
  The bill before us is the beginning, not the end, of our efforts to 
adapt to the new threats we face. After the Department of Homeland 
Security is created, we may find that other changes will be needed, but 
this legislation is a very important step to ensuring that our nation, 
our homeland, and our citizens, are protected to the fullest extent 
possible from the new and dangerous threats that confront us.
  I support this effort and I urge all Senators to vote for it.
  Let's get on with it.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. 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.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________