[Pages S9200-S9216]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.

Amendment No. 4740 To Amendment No. 4738

(Purpose: To modify certain personnel provisions, and for other
purposes)

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I call up my amendment at
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Nelson], for himself, Mr.
Chafee, and Mr. Breaux, proposes an amendment numbered 4740
to amendment No. 4738.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that
the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text
of Amendments.'')
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I am pleased to join with my
friends, Senator John Breaux of Louisiana and Senator Lincoln Chafee of
Rhode Island, in helping break the stalemate on the labor-management
issues that have held up the homeland security legislation. We need to
move forward and pass a bill that provides real security for all
Americans without the distractions of labor-management issues.
This legislation is a huge undertaking, and the reorganization will
certainly not be accomplished overnight.
That being said, we need to get to it right now because the later we
come back to try to do this, the more difficult it will be. We need to
do it right because unscrambling the eggs is impossible.
The new Department will not begin well if it begins with a staff who
feels their concerns have been ignored. We now have the opportunity to
break that logjam. This compromise addresses the concerns of both
sides. The agreement preserves the Presidential authority to exempt
union employees from collective bargaining as employees of the
Department of Homeland Security. It also grants the President historic
personnel flexibility, giving him the authority to hire, fire, promote,
demote, and to rewrite civil service laws in the area of performance
appraisals, classifications, pay rates and systems, and adverse action.
The agreement provides binding arbitration on personnel flexibility.
All sides will have a seat at the table during the development of the
new personnel rules and any disagreements over the rules will be
referred to the Federal Service Impasse Panel, which will have the
authority to set the rules and resolve disputes. This is modeled after
the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, which is current law.
The Federal Service Impasse Panel has discretion to impose new rules
to break this agreement. This is existing law. It is the way in which
we ought to proceed.
I know this amendment will receive broad bipartisan support, and I
hope those of us who seek to complete action on this important
legislation will support this effort to clear one of the major hurdles
that has been currently blocking our progress so we can move forward on
this important and vital security matter currently before us.
I ask for the support of my colleagues, and I hope we will move
forward on this as soon as we possibly can. There is no reason to delay
this legislation any longer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I support the amendment to the Gramm-
Miller amendment which has been offered by our good friend and
colleague Senator Nelson, and by my colleague Senator Lincoln Chafee.
It is very clear the Senate, as we debate homeland security, has
reached a point where we are at a logjam. I, for one, and I think the
vast majority of our colleagues, strongly support the creation of a
Homeland Security Department, and why is very simple.
In light of today's terrorist threat to this country, we can no
longer continue to operate and protect our Nation's security in the way
we always have. In the past, too often the right hand did not know what
the left hand was doing, and vice versa. It is clear, from the evidence
that has now been presented, we have agencies within our own Government
that had certain amounts of information that was important information,
but information they did not adequately share with other Departments
and agencies within our Government.

[[Page S9201]]

It is nice to have individual agencies know a little bit about the
intelligence of an international threat, but if they do not share that
information with other Departments within our Government, and they do
not put all of the information gathered into one single place where
people can look at it and analyze it, it is really not very effective
information. It is certainly not as effective as if we have the
collective wisdom of all of the various intelligence-gathering agencies
within our Government.
The point has very accurately been made if the CIA has information
the FBI does not have, if the Immigration Service has some information
neither one of the other agencies has, that is not a very effective
situation. If you throw in information that agencies such as the Drug
Enforcement Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
and local police and State police have, if each one of them keeps that
information to themselves, we are not providing the service we should
to the American people. For the first time, the creation of a Homeland
Security Agency is going to say to all of these collecting agencies
that gather the information that is so important, we should absolutely
share it and involve each other in what that information is all about,
and that is what the Homeland Security Agency does very effectively.
All of those, Republicans and Democrats together, who have worked
very hard to bring this legislation to the floor have done a good job.
This is good legislation. It is important legislation. What this
legislation does is simply say to the American people after 9/11, we
are going to create a new agency in our Federal Government to ensure
our ability to better protect the rights and freedoms of all American
citizens than we have in the past.
There are actions that have to be taken in times of national
emergencies that are not normal, such as during this period of special
concern. One of the powers that is necessary for a President to have is
the ability to move agencies, departments, and individuals as quickly
as possible, to the best position to serve the American public.
The President currently has the authority to say if it is important
for national security that some of the collective bargaining rights of
some of these employees of the Federal Government have to be
temporarily set aside. He can exercise that authority now, and he has
exercised it in the past. It has not been only this President but it
has gone back, I think, all the way to President John Kennedy. We are
in that type of a situation.

With the creation of a new Homeland Security Agency, however, we are
talking for the first time about creating a new agency where thousands
of employees may be taken out of one position and put into the Homeland
Security Agency.
Somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 who have collective bargaining
rights where they are currently working, if they are transferred to a
new Homeland Security Agency, for the first time may have those
collective bargaining rights taken away.
How ironic it would be if the agency we are creating to protect the
rights and freedoms of Americans is the agency that is utilized to take
away the rights of American citizens to collectively bargain without
the appropriate justification for doing so. I do not think anyone would
want to say that is their desire.
This Homeland Security Agency is designed to protect the rights and
freedoms Americans have gained. Some may argue about the wisdom of
having collective bargaining rights, but it is a right American
citizens have. So the question before this body now is: How do we give
the President the authority to do what is necessary in this new
Homeland Security Agency, which I support very strongly, while at the
same time ensuring while we take rights away from American citizens, it
is only done under the most unusual circumstances, and if it is
necessary it be done, it be done very carefully so everyone will
understand how this transaction is taking place?
What brings us to the floor today is this suggestion my good friends,
Senator Nelson and Senator Chafee, and myself, have worked on to try to
say, yes, we support homeland security, but we also want to make sure
we protect the rights and freedoms of our own American citizens.
It is interesting to note, if people would only take the time--and I
have said this so many times. I have said this to my good friend, the
chairman, Senator Lieberman--if all of us had the time to read the
legislation and see the actual differences between the two versions,
they would find the differences are far less than the similarities,
particularly when it comes to this very issue which is causing this
problem right now.
If we look at the current authority of the President of the United
States with respect to what he can do to remove collective bargaining
rights of American workers when he transfers them, it is almost
similar, if not identical, to what our suggestion is to break the
logjam. For instance, under the current law of the United States, under
5 U.S.C. section 7103, this is what people are saying, do not take away
the President's authority. The current law says the President may issue
an order excluding any agency or subdivision thereof from coverage
under this chapter--meaning take away their collective bargaining--if
the President determines, first, that the agency or subdivision has as
a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative or
national security work; and, second, the provisions of this chapter
cannot be applied to that agency or subdivision in a manner consistent
with national security requirements and considerations. What that says
is the President can take away their collective bargaining rights now
only if he makes a determination that these two things are present.

How do we handle it in our amendment, which I think can generate more
than a majority? Simple. Our legislation says no agency can have their
collective bargaining rights taken away, unless it is shown that the
mission and responsibilities of the agency or subdivision materially
change, and, second, that a majority of the employees within the agency
have as their primary duty intelligence, counterintelligence, or
investigative work directly related to terrorism investigation.
I will argue with anyone who wants to say that this somehow hampers
the ability of the President to take away collective bargaining rights.
Under our suggestion, the President, as under current law, has to make
a determination that these people are important to intelligence
gathering. That is easy for the President. And also that the mission
and responsibilities of the agency from which he wants to take these
rights away have materially changed. I think that is a very easy thing,
under the circumstances that exist today for the President to be able
to reach that standard.
It is interesting that under the current law there is no appeal from
the workers to go to the NLRB or any kind of labor agency. But there is
no appeal under our provision to go to any kind of NLRB or agency at
all.
Some of my friends on the Republican side say, yes, but those workers
could take the agency to court. That is true. But that is also true
under current law. If someone under current law thinks the President
has not made this determination correctly, they have the right to go to
court. I don't know that it has ever been done. If so, I think maybe
once it was not successful. But they have that right today. It is not
appropriate to say we are going to create this new agency but we are
going to give workers less rights than they have today.
Some have also suggested they show that mission and responsibilities
of the agency have materially changed. That would never fit today's
circumstances. The example they give is, we may have an immigration
agency working in south Texas that is all of a sudden going to be
transferred to the new agency to look after immigrants who are coming
from suspected terrorist areas of the world and that their mission will
not materially change. They will be doing the same work in a different
agency and, therefore, not meet the test of having their work
materially change because they will be doing the same type of work.
That does not create a problem. It is the intent of the authors of
this to clearly say it is our intent when you are transferring people
who are doing immigration work in border towns,

[[Page S9202]]

protecting our States under normal circumstances, that they have to do
that type of work to stop international terrorists at a time we have
been attacked by terrorists from other countries is materially changing
what they are doing. They are now looking out after foreign terrorists
who are trying to attack the United States and do grave harm to this
country. Their work has materially changed. The President makes this
determination under our amendment, as he does under current
circumstances. There is no appeal from the workers to be able to go to
any NLRB-type of organization and plead their case.

I plead with folks at the White House who have looked at this, take
another look at it. Read what the current law says. Read what our
suggestion is on collective bargaining. You will find there is not any
difference that is worth objecting to if we are able to get this
through the Senate with a large majority. It is not a good idea, I
suggest, to have a 50/50 vote on homeland security and have to ask the
Vice President of the United States to come to this Chamber to break
the tie, to barely get this through the Senate. What type of unanimity
does that show the American people as we pass homeland security? This
amendment should pass with 75, 80, or 90 votes at least. Our suggestion
in the Nelson-Chafee-Breaux amendment would allow us to have a huge
vote in support of this proposition.
The second area we have addressed in our amendment is important. The
question is, Do you give the President flexibility to move people
around, to change, perhaps, how they get paid, or to change their
functions because now there is a question of national security? We have
done that in our amendment. We have clearly spelled out the fact that
they have the authority to have management flexibility. We have taken
the larger part of the so-called Portman-Quinn amendment offered in the
House which gives management flexibility to the President.
I happen to think he should have management flexibility, but
certainly not unlimited. He should have it in the areas he needs it. We
have offered that. The Portman language in the Senate gave him
management flexibility in six different categories. We have said that
we will take four of those six categories and give him the flexibility
he needs to make the decisions he would like to make in moving these
people around.
The President should have that in terms of the national emergency. We
give him the authority that he needs, like in Portman-Quinn. The only
suggestion is, you should not be able to do it, like you cannot today,
without some involvement of the workers. You ought to at least sit down
with them and discuss with them as you do in other agencies--such as
the IRS, the FAA. Under current law, you sit down and talk with the
people you are going to be moving around to get their support, to get
their ideas, to get their suggestions about how it can be made to work
in a more efficient manner.
What type of managers want to dictate to the employees that he will
do this, that, and the other, and oh, by the way, I want you to be a
loyal worker after I do this? Our legislation requires that in making
these management changes, they shall be worked out with the
representatives of the workers and the Secretary, that they would enter
into a written agreement to approve the management flexibility that the
Secretary thinks he needs.
The point is, if they do not reach an agreement, do the workers have
a veto? Absolutely not. As under current Federal law, as under the
Internal Revenue Service when we gave them management flexibility, this
body and the other body voted and approved when they cannot agree on
management flexibility, you bring in the Federal Service Impasse Panel
and they will have the authority under the Federal Service Impasse
Panel--if the parties cannot arrive at an agreement, they have the
authority under our amendment, as under current law, to take whatever
action is necessary to resolve the impasse. That means if they want
management flexibility, they sit down with both sides and discuss it.
If the two sides cannot agree, they bring in the Federal Service
Impasse Panel and they make the decision. It is a binding decision.
What is this Federal Service Impasse Panel? Is this an arm of the
AFL-CIO? A new creation? No, it exists in Federal law today. There are
seven people on it. Guess who appoints the seven. The President of the
United States. He appoints every single member of the Federal Service
Impasse Panel that will look at what the President is trying to do, and
if the people cannot agree, his appointees, all seven of his
appointees, unanimously appointed by the President of the United
States, put into effect what they think is appropriate and improper. I
don't think that is something that is bad at all. That is current law
for the Federal service workers right now when they are being moved
around.
I suggest if we could adopt the Nelson-Chafee-Breaux amendment we
could put this aside. This bill has to go to conference with the other
body. There will be further negotiations on this issue. Hopefully, we
can come back with something that leaves the Senate, first, with a very
large vote, instead of 50/50, and then come back in a fashion that will
also generate the type of support that I think is critically important.
I ask for a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, creating the Department of Homeland
Security is an enormous undertaking. In fact, it is the largest Federal
undertaking since the creation of the Department of Defense. Senator
Breaux, Senator Nelson, and I offer this amendment to address the
concerns, not only of the President, of course, but also concerns of
the many thousands of Federal employees to whom we are entrusting our
national security. As Senator Breaux and Senator Nelson have pointed
out aspects of this amendment, I think it is important to note that
what we have done is taken Republican amendments, I say to my
colleagues on this side of the aisle, we have taken Republican
amendments from the House, the Republican amendment offered by
Representative Morella from Maryland, Republican amendments offered by
Representative Portman and Representative Quinn, from Ohio and New
York, and offered them into this amendment. This is an honest attempt
at bipartisanship.
Most important, as Senator Nelson has said, this amendment will
finally enable the Senate to move the process forward by getting this
bill to conference with the House. Without this compromise, there will
be no Senate bill. There will be no Department of Homeland Security.
But with this compromise we can empower the conference committee to
work with the administration to finalize a bill that will meet the
President's legitimate concerns and protect employees' legitimate
rights. I do urge passage of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Madam President--I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I renew my request the quorum call be
rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Just to clarify my intent, Madam President, this is not to
get recognition to try to offer an amendment or affect the procedure on
the pending issue. Talking with Senator Reid, he wanted to make sure
that at the conclusion of my remarks there would be an opportunity for
someone to seek recognition on the other side. I am sure that would be
the case, although Senator Bunning is here and wishes to speak on the
amendment at hand.
I would like, rather than just to speak on the amendment, to use
leader time, as was done by Senator Daschle this morning, to speak on
this critical area.

[[Page S9203]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, the Senate now has been on this important
issue over 3 weeks. The creation of the Homeland Security Department,
something that clearly is very important, needs to be done. Perhaps it
needed to be done earlier--without being critical of anybody. There
needs to be some way to bring these different groups together and get a
focus, get some direction, to give them the directions they need and
the funds and the people to deal here at home with the threat by
terrorists and by others. We need this Homeland Security Department.
I had thought we could probably do a Homeland Security Department in
a few days--probably less than a week. But here we are, now. Obviously,
we are going to take a month on this issue.
What is at stake? What has delayed this issue is the President's
authority to impose national security interests, the security of the
American people in their homes and their streets and their businesses,
innocent men, women, and children here at home--for the President to be
able to act in the national security interest, to have some flexibility
in management authority to make sure this Department runs efficiently.
Yet we see we are still arguing over work rules in the workplace. We
are still arguing over whether the President should have the authority
to say, for national security reasons: I am going to be able to move
people and money around, and we are going to be able to override work
rules to look after the security of the American people.
I think it is ridiculous that we have come to this point. I oppose
the pending amendment because, once again, this is an effort to try to
find a way to make it difficult or even impossible for the President of
the United States--and not just this President, Presidents--to be able
to do the job on homeland security.
The President has said that the Senate needs to act on homeland
security. There is beginning to be doubt about the Senate's commitment
in this area because we are putting special interests of certain groups
over homeland security. That is a legitimate debate. The debate has
been gentlemanly. We have not had many amendments because we have had
more talk than we have had amendments. But now we have the President's
proposal that has been offered by Senator Gramm and Senator Miller--a
bipartisan bill with some changes that have been agreed to. And now we
have an amendment that will be offered. That is all well and good. That
is fine.
Then there is the separate issue of the Iraq resolution. What are we
going to do about Saddam Hussein? Let me read to you what the President
of the United States said on that issue.

I want to thank Members of both parties of the U.S.
Congress for working to develop a strong resolution and a
strong signal to the world that this Nation is determined.

That is what the President actually said. Now, I am deeply saddened
by the tenor and the tone of the remarks of my friend, the majority
leader, this morning on the administration's conduct and Iraq. We live
in grave times, when this body should be carefully and deliberately
debating the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose
against the United States. Instead we heard accusations that a
President of the United States is using the possibility of war for
political purposes.
Who is the enemy here? The President of the United States or Saddam
Hussein? That is who was attacked this morning here on the floor of the
Senate. I think we would be better served debating Saddam Hussein and
the threat he poses for the world. He is a brutal dictator. He has
already used chemical and biological weapons against his own people.
We know he has the ability to deliver these weapons. We know he has
invaded his neighbors.
We had better be asking ourselves what we are going to do about this
tyrant. He has for 11 years ignored 16 U.N. resolutions and has been
involved in the killing of thousands of innocent people.
For anyone who seems surprised that we are engaged in this debate, I
ask a very simple question. Where were you, 9 months ago, when the
President of the United States came before a Joint Session of Congress
and said, ``Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and
to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and
nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that
has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens--
leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is
a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world?
Where were you, 9 months ago, when the President continued, ``States
like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil,
arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass
destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could
provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their
hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United
States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be
catastrophic''?
Where were you 6 months ago, on the half year anniversary of
September 11, when the President said, ``Here is what we already know:
some states that sponsor terror are seeking or already possess weapons
of mass destruction; terrorist groups are hungry for these weapons, and
would use them without a hint of conscience. And we know that these
weapons, in the hands of terrorists, would unleash blackmail and
genocide and chaos''?
The President continued, ``These facts cannot be denied, and must be
confronted. In preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction,
there is no margin of error, and no chance to learn from mistakes. Our
coalition must act deliberately, but inaction is not an option.''
Again in May, the President said:

The evil that has formed against us has been termed the
``new totalitarian threat.'' The authors of terror are
seeking nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Regimes
that sponsor terror are developing these weapons and the
missiles to deliver them. If these regimes and their
terrorist allies were to perfect these capabilities, no inner
voice of reason, no hint of conscience would prevent them.

The President of the United States has been actively laying out the
case against Iraq in a deliberate and focused way for nearly 1 year.
Just a month ago, Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in Congress
were saying to the President: Mr. President, make your case to the
American people. Come to the Congress. Make your case to us. Let us be
engaged in the dialog and the debate, have some resolution prepared,
and vote. Go to the United Nations. Make your case to the world
community. Reach out to our allies around the world, and those not
necessarily our allies, and show them the danger. Talk to them. Have a
dialog.
The President did that. He has been going to the American people. So
has his administration. He came to the Congress and said: You are
right. I am going to consult with you and communicate with you.
Let us have a dialog. Let us have a debate. Let us have a vote.
A number of Democrats have stood up and said: Yes, this problem is
serious, and we must address it. We must address it now.
The President went to the United Nations. He showed commitment and
leadership. He turned the whole debate there around and put pressure on
the United Nations to decide if they were just going to be a League of
Nations or if they were going to really enforce their resolutions that
had passed several times.
The President gave a bill of particulars about why we must act, and
we must act now, because with ever passing day, week, month, and year,
the threat grows, it doesn't diminish.
This is about the people in Iraq who are being oppressed and who have
been killed. This is about security in the region. This is about
security here at home.
Some people have said: He can't deliver nuclear weapons yet. He may
not have them.
He has the delivery systems. He is working to make them longer range.
We know that. He is trying to get materials he needs to have these
nuclear weapons. But put aside the nuclear weapons. We know he has
biological and chemical weapons right now. We know that. Some of these
weapons can be delivered with an aerosol can--right here; not somewhere
else; right here.

[[Page S9204]]

Have we forgotten the events of 9/11 so soon, which was so
catastrophic and so big? Are we ignoring what we are learning from the
hearings that are underway and from the realities of the threats from
terrorists all over the world, and particularly from Saddam Hussein?
Once the President came to the Congress, some people said: Wait. We
didn't mean now. Some people said: Let us do it instantly. Now some
people say it is being politicized; we shouldn't do that. We should
reduce the shrill of rhetoric. We should try to find a way to do this
in the right way and in a broad bipartisan way.
But let us go beyond the situation right here at home. Is somebody
going to accuse Prime Minister Tony Blair of politicizing the issue? He
is not up for reelection. In fact, he is going against a lot of the
people in his own party. I think the British people support what he is
doing. But he has shown real courage. He went before the House of
Commons this week and laid out the information he had. He deliberately
pointed out the danger and why we need to act now. Nobody can accuse
him of politicizing the issue.
This is what he said.

[The British Joint Intelligence Committee] concludes that
Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has
continued to produce them, that he has existing and active
military plans for the use of chemical and biological
weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes,
including against his own Shia population; and that he is
actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.

The Prime Minister continues:

Since the departure of the inspectors in 1998, Saddam has
bought or attempted to buy: specialized vacuum pumps of the
design needed for the gas centerfuge cascade to enrich
uranium . . . an entire magnet production line . . . and has
attempted, covertly to acquire 60,000 or more specialized
aluminum tubes which are subject to strict controls due to
their potential use in the construction of gas centerfuges.

All this, and Iraq has no civil nuclear powerplants. So they are not
doing it for that purpose.
The Prime Minister concluded:

Two things about Saddam stand out. He has used these
weapons, thousands dying in chemical weapons attacks in Iraq
itself. He used them in the Iran-Iraq war, started by him, in
which one million people died. And his is a regime with no
moderate elements to appeal to. Read the chapter on Saddam
and human rights. Read not just about the one million dead in
the war with Iran, not just about the 100,000 Kurds brutally
murdered in northern Iraq, not just the 200,000 Shia Muslims
driven from the marshlands in southern Iraq; not just the
attempt to subjugate and brutalize the Kuwaitis in 1990 which
led to the Gulf War. Read about the routine butchering of
political opponents; the prison ``cleansing'' regimes in
which thousands die; the torture chambers and hideous
penalties supervised by him and his family and detailed by
Amnesty International. Read it all again and I defy anyone to
say that this cruel and sadistic dictator should be allowed
any possibility of getting his hands on more chemical,
biological or even nuclear weapons.

That was the British Prime Minister.
This is not about politicizing the issue. We shouldn't do that. But
it is a very important issue. The American people's security is at
stake.
I think what maybe has happened here is a desire to try to find some
way to put this issue off or to in fact make it political.
But let me correct the Record just in case some of the comments here
were inspired by misinformation.
Today's Washington Post story on President Bush and Vice President
Cheney has remarks in it that are flat wrong. The partial quote cited
in the Post was specifically referencing the current debate over
management flexibility of the Department of Homeland Security--not the
war on terror in Iraq. I think that is a very important and critical
difference.
I took the time to look at the Vice President's remarks. I know Dick
Cheney. I have the utmost respect for him. I have heard him speak to
several different groups--political meetings and nonpolitical. He is
always low key, very studied in what he says, very careful, and it is
never inflammatory. He does talk about the need for the right actions
in the economy, national and homeland security, and trade promotion
authority. He has talked about the things we have done.
Then he said:

President Bush and I are very grateful for the opportunity
to serve our country. We thank you for your support, not just
for our efforts, but for good candidates like Adam Taff, who
will make a fine partner for us in the important work ahead.

What is the problem with that?
When I looked at what was said today, I must confess, I was shocked
and even horrified. I have taken a moment here to talk to some of the
colleagues on the floor about the important work ahead of us.
At a press conference this very morning, I was saying: We are going
to work this language out. We are going to find language that will give
the President the authority he needs but language that will have broad
bipartisan support in both bodies. We can find a way to do that.
But the accusations leveled against the President of the United
States today cannot stand. This is not about unity. That is the worst
kind of division. I am going to try to remain calm and attribute the
reaction I heard today to perhaps misunderstanding. We are not going to
question anybody's patriotism here, but we are going to question the
commitment and what we need to do to protect the American people.
It is not about questioning it; it is about doing it. We are not
going to pass a homeland security bill that ties the President's hands.
It is not going to happen. And he will not sign it.
We are going to take action against Iraq to make sure their weapons
of mass destruction are located and destroyed. If it takes regime
change, this Congress, this Senate is already on record saying we
support that.
I think it is time we get a grip on things. We have a lot of work to
do. Here in the Senate, we are not moving anything. We are becoming
totally dysfunctional. And now we are going to add to that the type of
accusations we had here this morning?
We have 2 weeks and 2 days or so to do a lot of important work: the
defense of our country, homeland security, economic security issues
that we need to address--terrorism insurance. There is so much we need
to do. I hope we will find a way to do those issues and get this
discussion back on the right track.
I yield the floor, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have been hoping to move this process
along. And I would hope that we would continue to have debate
throughout the day on the Gramm and the Nelson amendments.
The Senator from Texas had noted earlier that he was desirous of an
up-or-down vote. I would be prepared to provide that up-or-down vote. I
am going to propound a unanimous consent request to accommodate that,
so I will do so at this time.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on Senator Nelson's
amendment at 10 o'clock in the morning, tomorrow, and that immediately
after it has been disposed of, Senator Gramm be recognized to offer a
further second-degree amendment that is the text of amendment No. 4738,
and that the Senate then vote immediately in relation to Senator
Gramm's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, all we have
asked for, from the very beginning, is to have an opportunity to have
an up-or-down vote on the President's proposal, not having an up-or-
down vote on it as amended by somebody else.
The Senator has every right to amend it. It just seems to me, in a
wartime situation, when the President has proposed a compromise and has
asked that we vote on it, that we ought to do that. And on that basis,
I will object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have a hard time understanding the
basis for

[[Page S9205]]

the Senator's objection. We have offered him an up-or-down vote on his
amendment, just as he has suggested.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the majority leader yield?
I am going to help the majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. I will yield in just a moment.

Motion To Commit

Mr. President, I do not see that we have any other option, then.
To ensure that we keep in place the current parliamentary
circumstances that we have legislatively, I move to commit the bill to
the Governmental Affairs Committee and that it be reported back
forthwith with the Lieberman amendment No. 4471, as amended, pending.
And I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is before the Senate.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 4742 To The Instructions Of The Motion To Commit H.R.
5005 To The Committee On Governmental Affairs

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an
amendment numbered 4742 to the instructions of the motion to
commit H.R. 5005 to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. DASCHLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
At the moment there is not a sufficient second.
Mr. DASCHLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 4743 To Amendment No. 4742

(Purpose: To modify certain personnel provisions, and for
other purposes.)

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an
amendment numbered 4743.

Amendment No. 4738

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I believe the proposal of Senator Gramm
and Senator Miller represents our best hope of passing legislation this
year to put a new Homeland Security Department in place.
The Gramm-Miller substitute addresses the legitimate policy concerns
of many Senators on both sides of the aisle while also giving the
President the flexibility and the authority he needs to put together
and run a Homeland Security Department that fulfills its primary
mission--defending our people and our Nation.
This amendment is a good, bipartisan compromise. It contains a number
of provisions from the original bill reported out of the Governmental
Affairs Committee. It also contains the bulk of what the President has
asked.
As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I would like to
take a few minutes to talk about what I see as the strengths of this
proposal as well as the weaknesses of the Democratic proposal and why
it is imperative that we pass Gramm-Miller now.
One of the most important things this bipartisan amendment does not
do is, it does not take away important Presidential national security
authority when this country is in the middle of a war. Going back to
the markup of the homeland security bill in committee, many of us
argued that the President needs to have the maximum flexibility to
effectively administer a Homeland Security Department. We are fighting
a new type of war. The Department is going to have to be nimble.
Officials there are going to have to be able to react to events at home
and abroad on a moment's notice. The President must have the ability to
make decisions and move resources around to fight an enemy that has
spread throughout the world and could attack us from any point.
Every President since Jimmy Carter has had more discretion in running
agencies that were involved in national security. For instance, over
the past 30 years, every single President, Republican or Democrat, has
been able to declare, and actually has declared, that some civil
servants are exempt from collective bargaining rules that apply to
other agencies. The Democratic bill would change that when it comes to
homeland security.
Let me be clear: The employees at the new Department are going to
have a very important job to do. They deserve our respect and our
support. But to go as far as to give the President less authority over
them and to put more bureaucratic rules into place is to distract from
the reason we are debating this legislation in the first place.

We need to make sure these employees have the resources to do the
job. We need to make sure the President has the same ability. To give
him less authority is the exact opposite of what we need to do.
In short, that means the Democratic proposal would actually give the
President less flexibility than he already has under current law. That
is crazy. There is no reason to have this debate if we are only going
to talk about making it harder, not easier, for the President to lead
us in the war on terrorism.
This debate is supposed to be about crafting rules and building a new
Department to help fight the war on terrorism. It is not supposed to be
a debate about rolling back the clock to an outdated way of thinking
about labor and management relationships.
I have said throughout this debate that if the choice comes down to
national security versus more redtape and rules, national security must
win every time.
Instead, what the Gramm-Miller proposal would do is give the
President necessary management and personnel flexibility to allow him
to integrate the pieces of many standing agencies into a new Homeland
Security Department. This is going to be an awesome task we are
undertaking. We are talking about taking bits and pieces from literally
dozens of current agencies and quickly fitting them together into an
effective unit called the Department of Homeland Security.
That job is going to be an even harder one if we continue to focus on
old rules and redtape instead of how to fashion a new and flexible
agency to fight a war in the 21st century.
Another reason to support Gramm-Miller and to oppose the Democratic
bill or any substitute for it is the forward-thinking parts of the
bipartisan bill when it comes to civil service and personnel issues.
For instance, Gramm-Miller gives the President flexibility when it
comes to management decisions relating to hiring, evaluating, and
compensating. Democratic opponents look at this and see the glass is
half empty. They claim it is a pretext for cracking down on workers. I
see the glass as half full and view these reforms as a way for the
President and the others to reward those employees who do a good job
and provide the flexibility to hire the best and brightest for this new
Department. After all, we are talking about defending our Nation and
our people. Employees who do a good

[[Page S9206]]

job as part of that should be rewarded. Those who do not should either
be disciplined or fired.
At the same time, Gramm-Miller also retains whistleblower protection
and a full range of employee benefits and protections. I understand it
might not be everything the Government unions want, but it is still a
very good deal.
Gramm-Miller is also on the right track when it gives the President
extra authority to transfer funding and responsibilities to the
Homeland Security Department. Right now his hands are often tied by
redtape, but if we were to have another 9/11 disaster, if we were to
see another attack, the President would need more authority to act
quickly when it comes to moving around funds and responsibilities to
make sure we respond as rapidly as possible.
I know some of my colleagues worry about this new authority. They
think we are going too fast and that Congress would be giving away some
of its constitutional authority. I totally disagree. Gramm-Miller
specifically says that as to the biggest changes, the President would
ask Congress for permission by submitting a resolution to the House and
to the Senate and that we would have 90 days to act. That is the type
of consultation with which I am comfortable.

Obviously, we have to respect the separation of powers as well as
Congress's power of the purse and our powers to declare what role they
are going to play. We can do this while at the same time giving the
President more tools to effectively administer the Federal bureaucracy.
My friends on the other side of the aisle who oppose Gramm-Miller
have also thrown out a couple of other red herrings when it comes to
labor and personnel issues. They have tried to fall back on the notion
that the proposal would undercut the Davis-Bacon rules covering
prevailing wage on Government construction projects. But the fact is
that Gramm-Miller is neutral on this issue and explicitly does not
address it.
They also try to make the claim that supporters of Gramm-Miller are
using it as some devious way to undercut, in a broad manner, rights
under the Federal Labor Relations Act. Again, this just is not true.
The President does have the right under Gramm-Miller to exempt
applications of the rules on a limited basis but only--but only--if
national security is involved. That sounds reasonable, and I believe
most of the American people, if given a choice between tying the
President's hands with labor negotiations or giving him the ability to
act for national security, would give him the benefit of the doubt.
When you get beyond the debate about broad policies and personnel
issues, Gramm-Miller also makes sense when it comes to the nuts and
bolts of making changes to specific departments and agencies.
For example, when reorganizing the Customs Service under the new
Homeland Security Department, the Democratic bill would provide for the
transfer of Customs to the Homeland Security Department but at the same
time also requires it to be maintained as a distinct entity within the
Border and Transportation Security Directorate.
That also makes no sense. Customs cannot be in two places at one
time. It is either a part of homeland security or it is not. There is
no other way I can see how it can function effectively by splitting its
resources and focusing among two agencies.
The only reason I can see that the Democratic bill does it this way
is to protect turf, but all this would do is to protect the same old
stovepipe system and personnel we have now, but under different names.
If anything, moving Customs into two different agencies might make
things worse.
Instead, Gramm-Miller would transfer Customs to homeland security and
reserve at Treasury the limited right to issue regulations covering
some of the Customs' revenue functions. That seems like a much more
sensible and workable solution to me.
I know it might not be popular in the bureaucracy, and there might be
some at Treasury and Customs who are resisting this change, but if it
is a choice between keeping the status quo or some sort of warped
version of it to save the bureaucratic face to protect turf, then I
have no problem in upsetting the applecart and supporting a new
streamlined approach to Government.
Another example of what I am talking about is how the competing
proposal deals with FEMA. The Democratic bill moves FEMA to a new
Department as a ``distinct entity'' that cannot be reorganized or
merged.
The Gramm-Miller bill simply moves FEMA to the Homeland Security
Department.
I do not even understand what the Democrat bill is trying to do here.
It claims to move FEMA to Homeland and to give the Secretary some
authority over it. But at the same time it says that FEMA cannot be
reorganized or improved.
This is a distinction without a difference. Either FEMA is part of
Homeland or it isn't.
Either the new Secretary has the authority over FEMA and the ability
to put its resources to work or he doesn't.
The Democrat bill tries to tiptoe around the issue so that it does
not step on toes. But when it comes to war and fighting terrorists, it
is time to step boldly.
Instead of talking about shades of gray and playing word games, we
need to start looking at the world in black and white and acting
boldly.
In other areas, Senator Gramm and Senator Miller have gone out of
their way to adopt workable sections of the Democrat bill and to
compromise.
For instance, Gramm-Miller adopts the Democrat bill's language when
it comes to Freedom of Information Act issues and the law enforcement
powers of inspector agents.
These might seem small, but especially with FOIA I know that many of
my colleagues were worried about accountability of the new Department,
and I appreciate the bipartisan efforts to reach across the aisle from
Senator Gramm and Senator Miller.
Gramm-Miller also borrows from the Democrat bill when it comes to
provisions covering Federal workforce improvement and adopting reforms
worked out in the Governmental Affairs Committees by Senator Voinovich
and Senator Akaka.
It accepts all of the Democrat proposal when it comes to emergency
procurement authority.
On the subject of Administration of the Centers for Disease Control,
it also accepts all of the Democrat proposal.
Gramm-Miller proposes effective immigration reforms by adopting the
Democrat bill's proposal to create an Immigration Affairs directorate
within the new Department and to transfer the Immigration and
Naturalization Service to it.
Senator Gramm and Senator Miller also accept, with only minor
changes, the Democrat's proposal to modify the Coast Guard's mission
and reforms the rules that cover how we issue visas.
In short, Gramm-Miller has tried to take the best and most acceptable
parts of the Democrat bill while also maintaining the flexibility and
some of management proposals that the President says he needs.
For instance, the President's plan provides for unified intelligence
analysis and infrastructure protection in one organization.
This would have a single agency responsible for providing both threat
assessments and vulnerability analysis. Nowhere in the Government does
this currently take place. This plan would fill that gap.
As the current Joint Intelligence Committee hearings have shown the
last several days, our intelligence community needs some work.
Most importantly, information about what is going on in this country
needs the most work, and information about what our own weaknesses are
is largely nonexistent. This amendment would allow these two types of
analysis to come together and provide the most accurate information
about what we need to do as a Nation to protect ourselves domestically.
This flexibility and reform is not part of the Democrat bill.
We have been at loggerheads on this legislation for almost 4 weeks
now.
I think we know it is getting down to crunch time and it is time to
compromise. That is what Gramm-Miller does.
No one is going to get everything of what they want and the time
before adjournment is shrinking rapidly.
I think it is time to move beyond confrontation and toward a workable

[[Page S9207]]

compromise that will allow us to put an effective Homeland Security
Department into place now.
I know that some Members think we are moving too fast and they want
to spend more time debating the bill.
I think that is the wrong way to look at this situation.
Obviously, we have to get things right in building the new
Department. But at the same time, we all know that if we can come up
short we come back and fix things down the road. I do not think anyone
seriously doubts that if we pass a bill that needs to be tweaked down
the road that the Congress is going to drag its feet on such an
important national security issue.
We owe it to ourselves and the American people to finish work on this
bill. We have been debating it for close to a month. Before that, it
was subject to some public debate during the August recess and during
the Government Affairs Committee markup in July. We have had over 15
hearings on this bill.
We are not reinventing the wheel. We have had a good debate. I think
we have a good handle on this bill and now it is time to vote.
If we are worried about making mistakes or not passing a perfect bill
we will be here until doomsday--literally.
This is a complicated issue. There are bound to be mistakes. But I
think we are on the verge of getting much of it right, and on many
levels we will not know for sure how to make the Department work until
we get it up and running and see where the shortcomings are.
So let's get started. The people who will staff this new Department
are already out there, trying their best to protect America.
They are dedicated public servants who make many sacrifices to serve
this Nation and their fellow citizens, but right now they are spread
throughout the Government.
It is time to bring them together and to harness their collective
talents for the national good.
There is an old phrase that says one should either leads, follow, or
get out of the way. Right now we are doing none of those things. We in
Congress need to start leading
The President has been pretty clear about what he needs to administer
the new Department.
He has told us what he can accept and what he has to veto.
The House has acted, and now I think a bipartisan majority in the
Senate ought to be ready to act.
We can continue talking or try to pass a political bill that the
President will send right back to us.
Instead, we should adopt Gramm-Miller. It is a good starting point--a
solid, consensus bill.
It borrows the ideas from competing bills, and as the only bipartisan
bill it offers common sense solutions when it comes to building the
Department of Homeland Security.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from Kentucky leaves the
floor, I, as all Senators, I am sure, feel very fortunate to be able to
serve in the Senate. One reason is the associations we develop with our
fellow Senators. One of the things I haven't had a chance to say
publicly, or even privately, to the Senator from Kentucky is how much I
enjoy serving with him.
As a boy, I used to listen to baseball games--no television; we used
to listen to the games. Of course, Jim Bunning was one of the people
who pitched those great ball games. Then, of course, I watched him do
all the great things he did later on. And now, to serve in the Senate
with a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame, for somebody who wanted to
be a baseball player--that was what I wanted to be until I found out I
wasn't good enough--is really one of the pleasures of my life--to say I
served with somebody who is in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Mr. President, I will send a cloture motion to the desk.
Mr. BUNNING. Will the Senator yield?
Now you have switched your allegiance to a fellow who lives in your
home State?
Mr. REID. I have to admit I did give a statement on the floor the day
before yesterday about another great pitcher who certainly will be a
member of the Hall of Fame, Greg Maddux. In my statement, I said Greg
Maddux is less than 6 feet tall, weighs maybe 10 pounds more than I
do--not very big, clearly not as big as the Senator from Kentucky. The
Senator from Kentucky hasn't gained much weight, if any, from the time
he pitched. Greg Maddux is one of the great ones. On Sunday he won his
272nd game. He has an ERA lifetime of about 2.5. He tied Cy Young's
record of winning 15 games 15 years in a row.
One of the interesting things I learned was that, as a 20-year-old,
when he came up to the majors, the second game he won, he pitched
against his brother Mike, and beat him. Mike played for the Cincinnati
Reds at the time when he beat him.
I haven't switched my allegiance. I can have allegiance for more than
one great baseball player.
Mr. BUNNING. I thank the Senator.

Cloture Motion

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
Rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Gramm-
Miller amendment No. 4738 to H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security
legislation.
Harry Reid, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Hillary Rodham
Clinton, Debbie Stabenow, Mark Dayton, Patrick Leahy,
John Breaux, Tom Carper, Tom Daschle, Byron L. Dorgan,
Jack Reed, Jim Jeffords, Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu,
Max Baucus, Daniel K. Inouye.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Because of the parliamentary matters we have been going
through this afternoon, a number of Senators have come to the floor and
have wanted to speak and have been prevented from doing that.
Therefore, I hope things will run a little more smoothly this
afternoon.
I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, be
recognized for up to 15 minutes, Senator Nelson be then recognized for
up to 10 minutes, and Senator Nickles for 10 minutes. He told me that
is what he wanted. Then, Senator Voinovich waited here all morning and
part of the afternoon. I ask that he then be recognized for up to 35
minutes to speak and that then Senator Lieberman, the manager of this
bill, be recognized after that for up to 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. In that order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I personally want to express my regard for
the distinguished Senator from Kentucky and his excellent remarks
today. I think he covered the problems quite well. I personally
appreciate the friendship we have together and the great leadership he
provides in the Senate. I think he did a very good job. I agree with
him.
Mr. President, every Member of this body, and every citizen in this
country, knows that the most critical issue facing our Nation today is
the task of securing our homeland and protecting our country from
further terrorist attacks. The enormousness of this task cannot be
overstated; and its implementation is equal measures vexing and
daunting. But we must rise to the challenge. And we must do so
together. No less than the lives of our citizens and the security of
our nation hangs in the balance.
With regard to this, I pay my compliments to the distinguished
Senator from Georgia who gave a speech this morning that was really
very good. Senator Miller, it seems to me, has made a real effort to
bridge the gap between Democrats and Republicans on the floor and
otherwise. His remarks were just absolutely right on the money. I
personally express my regards for his remarks and express my love and
affection for him as a Senator. He is a good man, and we ought to
listen to him.
I speak today out of a spirit of bipartisanship. I am proud of the
way that Congress has come together on issues of national security
since the horrific

[[Page S9208]]

attacks of September 11. In the wake of these tragic events, members of
the Judiciary Committee and Congress worked tirelessly to provide the
Attorney General with the tools necessary to fight terrorism worldwide
and protect our country. Specifically, we passed the PATRIOT Act, a
critical set of reforms needed to unleash our government's ability to
detect and prevent terrorist attacks, by an near-unanimous vote of 99-
1. It is my hope that enough of that robust bipartisan spirit remains
today as we consider the landmark legislation to create the Department
of Homeland Security. As we have just passed the anniversary of the
terrorist attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans, such a
sentiment is not just sorely welcome; it is also fundamental and
necessary and appropriate.
Today, we face a significant new type of military threat, one far
different than post-World War II communism. We face today the danger of
numerous, well-financed, well-trained and completely ruthless terrorist
groups who will stop at nothing to cross our borders and attack our
institutions, infrastructures, people and freedoms with all types of
weapons. They engage in unconventional warfare and are bound by no
rules. I speak not of just al-Qaida but many other terrorist groups.
The creation of the new Homeland Security Department is a massive task
precisely because the terrorist threat is so pressing and pernicious.
The proposal to create a new Homeland Security Department is the next
logical and necessary step in our country's war against terrorism. In
my view, there are several components that are critical to ensuring its
success.
One of these involves our intelligence practices. In the aftermath of
September 11, it is abundantly clear that we must improve the
gathering, sharing, and analyzing of information within and among our
Federal, State and local agencies. Our nation clearly needs to have a
centralized office that is responsible for reviewing all of the
terrorism-related information that collected by any agency, be it the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the
National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, or one of
the others. The Homeland Security Department is a critical step to
ensuring that intelligence information is comprehensively collected,
analyzed and disseminated. We must be sure not to handcuff the new
Department's ability to do its job in this area. In particular, we must
take pains to ensure that we do not unnecessarily limit the use of this
intelligence within the new Department. The stakes are simply too high
to place artificial constraints on this important function.
Another critical area involves managerial flexibility. The new
Department of Homeland Security must be given the ability to hire and
retain the very best people to do the work of keeping our country safe.
We need to give the Secretary of Homeland Security such fundamental
management powers as the ability to remove poor performers and reward
exemplary employees with merit-based pay raises. Believe it or not,
under our antiquated system of Federal employment rules, it can take
five months to hire a new employee and 18 months to fire a terrible
worker. Most Federal employees also get annual pay raises based on how
long they have worked for the government, not how well they do their
jobs. The vast majority of ordinary Americans don't have such outdated
rules in their workplaces. There is absolutely no sound reason to move
such inefficiencies to the new Department of Homeland Security. That is
the current law. The bill before us even expands that.

Let me be clear: I am convinced that the vast majority of Federal
workers do an outstanding job for our country. That is why I am not
concerned with giving the Department of Homeland Security more
managerial flexibility. Indeed, because most Federal workers do great
work, they have nothing to fear and everything to gain from an improved
system that allows their work to be rewarded through merit-based
bonuses and raises. Only poor workers need be concerned, and they
should be. Frankly, there is no place for underperforming or
incompetent workers in the agency charged with protecting our safety.
The new Department has the Herculean task of preventing terrorist
attacks and keeping our country safe. I cannot imagine any reason why
we would handicap it by imposing a system of rules that protect bad
Federal workers at the expense of good ones and, more importantly, at
the expense of our nation's safety. That is what the amendment to the
bill by Senator Gramm and Senator Miller changes.
The need for flexibility, in my view, must run through every corner
of the Department of Homeland Security. The very nature of our enemy is
quick and deliberate action; terrorists are quick to change their
members, associations, plans, training bases, and destructive methods.
Terrorists, moreover, come in many different shapes, colors and
ideological bents. We must equip our security forces with the ability
to be similarly adaptable. The Department simply must have the ability
to adapt itself to a constantly changing enemy threat. We will fail our
task miserably if all we end up doing is reorganizing dozens of
inflexible agencies into a new titular Department of Homeland Security.
If the Secretary of Homeland Security is required to keep intact within
the Department each of the individual agency's personnel, components,
budgets and rules, then we don't have a new department--just a
hodgepodge of independent agencies. We will have created just another
layer of bureaucracy. That cannot be our goal. That cannot constitute
effective governance. For this reason, I think it is absolutely
essential that we give the Secretary of Homeland Security the ability
to move personnel, assets and money to best meet the rapidly shifting
terrain of terrorist threats.
We all recognize that the war against terrorism cannot be won simply
by reorganizing existing government agencies into a Department of
Homeland Security. That Department must be equipped with the tools to
complete its task. Moreover, it is essential that we tap into the
resources and expertise of America's private sector. The new Department
must enlist the aid and expertise of America's businesses to enhance
our nation's security, and I am committed to making sure that the new
Department is able to receive the uninhibited advice and counsel of our
business leaders. It is private businesses which own and operate most
of our infrastructure--our telecommunications, energy and financial
systems. Our government cannot effectively fight this war against
terrorism without their support. We must arm our agencies with the best
technologies available, and our private sector is a critical player in
this process, as it has been in our national defense and military. Our
war against terrorism would be hopeless without the active innovation
and support of private industries. We must also recognize that the
private sector cannot realistically step up to help wage our fight
against terrorism without some reasonable protection from frivolous
tort litigation.

Congress must act and must do so quickly and carefully without
political gamesmanship. Our task is too important; we cannot afford to
sacrifice our country's safety in the process. The threat of terrorist
attacks on our homeland, as well as abroad, is here to stay. Our
response to this threat requires a singleness of focus. All of us in
Government have a duty to do all we can to protect the American people
from future terrorist attacks.
I have spent considerable time considering the tools that the new
Department of Homeland Security simply must have to create an effective
system of protecting our borders from terrorism. Having done so, I have
reluctantly concluded that I cannot support Senator Lieberman's
proposal, which simply cobbles together dozens of disparate agencies
without any mechanism for adapting their personnel and missions to meet
the challenge of the new Department. On the other hand, I find myself
in great agreement with the central proposals of the Gramm-Miller bill.
It is a bipartisan measure. And, as all bipartisan bills, it represents
a series of compromises. But, I am convinced, the compromises will not,
in my view, detract from the core ability of the Department to do its
job and protect American lives. Critically, the Gramm-Miller bill
provides enough flexibility for the President and the Secretary of
Homeland Security to respond to an ever-changing, multi-headed threat.

[[Page S9209]]

The task of guarding against terrorism is immense; the risk of
failure is enormous. We simply cannot be bound by partisan interest
groups in this time of war and crisis. Let us join together to pass the
bipartisan Gramm-Miller bill so that we can feel certain that we have
done all we possibly could to protect the mothers, fathers and children
for whom each of us work.
The same considerations that compel me to support the Gramm-Miller
bill cause me to oppose the Nelson-Chafee-Breaux amendment. While this
amendment is a slight improvement from the Lieberman substitute, it
still ties the President's hands much too much. Like the Lieberman
substitute, the proposal cuts back on the President's existing
authority to decertify the union affiliation for workers in the new
Department in the interests of national security. This would be a step
back under any circumstances; it certainly is not a forward-thinking
way of creating a successful new Department of Homeland Security.
Moreover, the amendment allows the unions to arbitrate any attempt by
the President to loosen the civil service rules governing promotions
and dismissals. I think I need to be entirely candid on this issue: how
many members of this body would feel good about these rules if it took
us 5 months to hire a staffer and 18 months to fire an incompetent one?
How many of us would stand up and support such a system if it affected
the way we do business?
There is not one of us who would do that. And that is what we will
get if we have the underlying bill.
In all honesty, I think it is time to bring this matter to a close.
I personally have seen how the majority has loaded up the tree with a
bunch of Democrat amendments in an attempt to prevent a vote on the
Gramm-Miller amendment. We intend to have a vote on the Gramm-Miller
amendment, and the sooner the better. It may be that the majority will
win on that amendment; it may be that they won't. But that is the
nature of the process around here. We can't keep playing parliamentary
games with homeland security. That is what is going on around here.
That is the reason I have come to the floor. I don't come to the floor
that often to raise Cain. And I am not raising Cain here, I am just
speaking frankly.
I think it is time for us to get about voting on these two different
aspects of the bill. We ought to vote on the Gramm-Miller bill. There
will have to be a vote on it. We ought to vote on the underlying bill,
if that is the case--the Lieberman bill. I am not objecting to that. I
don't think our side is objecting, nor is our side filibustering. We
just want to be treated in a decent, honorable fashion; that is, give
us a vote on the Gramm-Miller amendment, or the Gramm-Miller
substitute, to put it in better terms.
I get a little tired of politics around here, especially now that we
are dealing with homeland security. That is what the President was
criticizing. I hate to say this, but I saw the remarks of the
distinguished majority leader earlier. It was on all three cable
networks, as far as I could tell. Those remarks implied that the
President was politicizing Democrats. That is not the case. The
President did say we are muddling around here. He didn't say it in
those terms. I will put it in these terms--muddling around with this
homeland security bill instead of voting up or down and getting the job
done.
That is what we need to do. We don't need to have any distortions of
what the President said or what Vice President Cheney said.
That is what I think, unfortunately--I am sure it was sincere and
well intentioned--was a distortion, but it is still a distortion.
I think it is time we get rid of those types of attempts to have
political games at the expense of a bill of this importance. That is
what the President is driven by.
After seeing all the weeks that we have been on this bill, I think
the President is justified in his criticism.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity
to rise in support of the Nelson-Breaux-Chafee amendment which is a
bipartisan compromise on homeland security.
I believe perhaps some clarification is in order because there seems
to be some misinformation or misunderstanding about what this bill
does.
My good friend from Utah said the amendment ties the President's
hands. We have looked very carefully at existing authority that the
President has in similar circumstances at this very moment. And it
doesn't tie the President's hands.
I must say Nebraska is going to be playing Texas at Texas A&M. My
good friend from Texas is my hunting partner. Senator Gramm is not
going to move the goalposts down in Texas when we play A&M. We are not
going to move the goalposts on Texas when Texas plays in Lincoln. I
don't think it is about moving goalposts in athletic events. But I
believe on this amendment we have had the goalposts moved on us.
Just recently, while I was presiding, Senator Gramm, in talking about
the Lieberman bill, referred to the fact that it was too restrictive on
the President's authority in the area of collective rights and
bargaining rights, or in terms of civil service protection. At that
point, he believed it tied the President's hands in dealing with these
very important issues when it comes to national security.
It was partly as a result of his comments at that time that I thought
we would try to find a compromise that could deal with the situation.
Let me read from some of Senator Gramm's comments that he made on the
floor, I believe, just last week.
He was talking about the fact that when we decided to federalize
inspectors at airports, in that bill we gave the President power in
terms of personnel flexibility to hire and fire, and we gave him the
ability to get around the normal procedures that require up to 6 months
to hire somebody. Then he goes on to say we have done that same sort of
thing in the Federal Aviation Administration.
Then he goes on and references the Internal Revenue Service. I quote:

I ask my colleagues: If we believed that the current system
was failing us in the Internal Revenue Service and that we
had a problem which required a different approach and more
flexibility with regard to our sensitivity at the Internal
Revenue Service with people who know our intimate financial
information and who look at our tax returns. If we believed
that flexibility to administer that Department was
necessary--and we did, and we adopted it and it is the law of
the land today--I wonder what people back home would think
when we said we thought flexibility was required at the
Internal Revenue Service. . . .

In other words, he says what we did in the Internal Revenue Service
reorganization was OK.
That is what he said last week.
Well, lo and behold, because of his commitment to that particular
flexibility, that is exactly the kind of language and that is the
reference we have in this amendment.
If it was good enough for last week, it seems to me it ought to still
be good enough for this week and next week and the week thereafter.
So if this isn't moving the goalposts, it is at least shifting around
on the answers. And I believe that what was good enough last week, and
what is good enough for the Internal Revenue Service to deal with
flexibility, is good enough for homeland security.
Then the White House, through various spokespersons, has raised a
question about whether the President's hands would be tied with what we
are proposing.
But lo and behold, Governor Ridge--who took advantage of me with a
bet on the Penn State-Nebraska game, which I shall pay him very vividly
for--went ahead and said something in his letter to Senator Lieberman
that I thought was important.
This is in his letter dated September 5, 2002:

Senator, the President seeks for this new Department the
same management prerogatives that Congress has provided other
departments and agencies throughout the Executive Branch. For
example:
. . . personnel flexibility is currently enjoyed by the
Federal Aviation Administration--

And guess what--

the Internal Revenue Service, and the Transportation
Security Administration.

I do not know what has changed since September 3 or last week,
because we thought this would be acceptable,

[[Page S9210]]

given the fact that the President needs the kind of historic personnel
flexibility he is seeking.
So for those who said we are changing the laws, or we are somehow
restricting the Presidential authority, or tying the President's hands
by changing the law, apparently they have not focused on what the
current status of the law is because they are asking for what we are
trying to provide them at the present time.
Now, I don't know whether someone hasn't read the amendment, but some
of the criticisms I have heard of the amendment would indicate they saw
a previous iteration. It seems to me the current state of affairs with
our amendment would be directly on point or on all fours with what has
been asked.
So I am very anxious to see if we can get a clarification because I
think it has to be some sort of a simple mistake. I cannot believe that
we have been asked to do something, or it has been suggested that this
would be OK, and then, when we offer it, that somebody cannot take yes
for an answer. I hope this will be clarified.
It is also important to say that binding arbitration and personnel
flexibility is part of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998,
which both Governor Ridge and Senator Gramm have suggested was OK. So
it seems to me that whether it was binding arbitration, personnel
flexibility, or, in the case of Presidential authority, in terms of
exempting union membership, union employees, from collective bargaining
membership, we have done exactly what others have been asking us to do.

So it seems to me that if the people are as anxious as they seem to
be, both in the administration and on the other side of the aisle, to
get the Gramm-Miller amendment considered, the first step is to pass or
at least have a vote on Nelson-Breaux-Chafee because it will, in fact,
give us an opportunity to have that vote, and I think another vote
shortly thereafter, if necessary, on Gramm-Miller.
I do not know what more a person can do today than give the other
side the kind of answers they are seeking and the kind of solution for
which they have been asking. I hope this will be clarified. If there
are some misunderstandings--as I think it may be a simple
misunderstanding--I hope some other people will show up and respond to
what we have put out there at this point in time.
Very often, misinformation, a lack of information,
mischaracterizations, and things such as that can drive the day. I hope
they do not drive this day. National security is too important, and
passing this homeland security legislation is of the utmost importance.
So for those who are suggesting there is any effort to delay it or in
some way tie the President's hands, this simply does not do it. It is
consistent with existing law, and it gives the President ample
authority to do what the President needs to do for personnel, for
collective bargaining, and for breaking the logjam in the homeland
security debate, which is so important to the future of our country.
Passion runs deep: passion about Iraq, passion about homeland
security, passion about getting something done as quickly as possible.
I hope we can use that passion as a basis to accomplish something.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to speak for a little bit of time
until Senator Nickles from Oklahoma arrives, and ask unanimous consent
that he then be permitted to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I simply want to respond, very briefly, to
what I saw this morning on the television when I was observing the
activity on the floor.
I saw the majority leader come to the floor and give what I thought
were very intemperate remarks suggesting that--not suggesting--
demanding that the President of the United States apologize, allegedly
for politicizing the war effort.
My belief, after looking at all of the transcripts of the comments
that were attributed to the President and the Vice President--and I
have them all right here, as well as the newspaper accounts of the
same--it suggests to me that it is not the President but the
distinguished majority leader who needs to apologize.
I say that because it is very clear the President has not politicized
anything with respect to this war. The comments in which he criticized
the Senate--and I believe rightly so--have to do with our failure to
adopt a homeland security bill. And he referred to the special
interests that have been involved in impeding action on the bill, and
complained about the fact that the Senate has not followed the
leadership of the House and passed a bill.
As a matter of fact, earlier today the Senate precluded a vote on the
President's plan. When Senator Gramm sought to have an opportunity to
vote on the President's plan, that was turned down.
So we have a situation in which the Senate, for the fourth week now,
is debating the homeland security bill--has not passed it, will not
even let the President have a vote on his proposal--and the majority
leader suggests the President is politicizing national security.
The President is right to complain about that. But what the President
did not do was to connect any activity of the Senate, or Democrats in
the Senate--or anybody else, for that matter--to the war effort, as was
inferred by the majority leader.
The majority leader attempted to take quotations that dealt with
homeland security and transform them somehow or other into criticism of
Democrats in the policy with respect to Iraq. And that simply is not
true. It did not happen. For that reason, as I say, it seems to me the
majority leader ought to be the one offering the apology, not the
President.
I had been talking, just before watching this, about the damage that
was being done to the attempts by the President to reach an
international consensus in developing a plan for dealing with Iraq by
the comments of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder during his
election. And both Dr. Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld have noted the fact
that those comments were not helpful and poisoned the atmosphere.
They poisoned the atmosphere internationally by, in effect,
confirming what Saddam Hussein is saying, that the President is acting
out of political motives rather than out of a desire to achieve peace
in the world. When the distinguished majority leader comes to the
Senate floor and seemingly validates those same criticisms of the
President, he is further poisoning the atmosphere.
That is another reason why he owes the President an apology. He is
literally politicizing the issue in a way that is destructive to the
President's attempt to achieve an international consensus.
I find it ironic because it is the other party that has sought to
assure the President would gain that consensus internationally, many of
them suggesting that is necessary before we act, and then that very
attempt is being undermined as a result of the comments made here.
Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KYL. I am happy to yield.
Mr. ROBERTS. I ask the Senator from Arizona if he is aware, along the
same vein of comments that were made by the distinguished majority
leader in reference to the Vice President--I share the same concern he
has mentioned--is the Senator aware when the Vice President was in
Kansas, basically they are accusing the Vice President of politics in
regard to the Iraq debate in urging an audience in Kansas to vote for a
GOP congressional candidate?
Mr. KYL. I am aware of the fact the majority leader alluded to that.
But he was only looking at a headline in a newspaper. I know the
Senator from Kansas was actually at the event.
Mr. ROBERTS. I would respond to the Senator by simply indicating,
there is nothing that hurts the truth more than stretching it.
I understand if somebody reads a headline and gets upset about it. I
would, too. But the headlines I have

[[Page S9211]]

from the Kansas press--and the Senator is correct; I was at the meeting
and introduced the candidate. The candidate introduced Lynne Cheney,
the wife of the Vice President. The Vice President gave a very standard
speech. Here is the headline, ``Cheney Talks About Iraq at
Congressional Fundraiser.'' He said that our candidate would be ``an
effective voice for Kansas, a fine addition to your State delegation,
which is already one of the best in the country,'' which I appreciated.
But I find nothing here that has anything to do with politics.
And then here is another one, ``Fundraiser for Taff Draws 500.'' From
the Kansas City Star, ``Cheney Talks Tough at Taff Fundraiser.'' But
the two things were separated. It was a very sobering discussion on the
policy of preemption and what we face in Iraq.
As a matter of fact, the Vice President, in a private session, said
the Congress ought to be asking tough questions, which we are, and
urged bipartisan support. I heard every word. For the life of me, I
just did not hear that kind of inference at all. I wanted to come to
the floor--I thank the Senator for yielding to me--to indicate that
simply was not the case. If we are into a situation where we are
inferring we are trying to politicize this effort, that is not the case
with the Vice President. We can't be in the business of the security of
the American people and sending wrong messages to Saddam Hussein unless
we get the facts straight.
In doing that, I am not trying to perjure the intent or the concern
of the distinguished majority leader. It just did not happen. I wanted
to set the record straight.

Mr. KYL. I appreciate that from the Senator from Kansas. I know the
majority leader this morning a little bit later, in talking to
reporters in response to a question, said he was relying upon the
newspaper accounts of what had been said. But I suggest that while that
might ordinarily be all right, the press can make mistakes, and when
you are accusing the President of politicizing a war effort, you better
be correct. We have gone back and actually looked at the stories, and
the Senator from Kansas makes a point, too. The Vice President is a
very careful person. He is not prone to politicizing things.
I will conclude by saying it is very important for us to keep our eye
on who the enemy is. The enemy is the terrorists. The enemy is Saddam
Hussein. The enemy for none of this is President Bush. I don't think we
should be raising questions or throwing around allegations that
undercut what ought to be a common effort from everybody in this
country as well as this body to ensure we have the kind of consensus
that will enable us to prosecute whatever war we prosecute in a way
that enjoys both support in the United States and abroad. The kind of
tirade entered into here this morning undercuts that effort. It does
not assist.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add 10
minutes to the time allocated to me under the order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the
Lieberman homeland security bill, the Gramm-Miller amendment, and the
Nelson-Chafee-Breaux amendment to that amendment.
Before I do that, I will comment on the fact I am really disturbed at
what I see going on here in the Senate in terms of the President of the
United States. Our President has more on his plate than perhaps any
President in my memory. He has the Middle East situation. I have been
studying that for 20 years. That is more fragile than I have ever seen
it during my lifetime.
We are in Afghanistan. We have forgotten we are there. That is a
major undertaking. We are trying to work diplomatically to make sure
Pakistan does not go after India and India after Pakistan, which could
embroil us in a nuclear situation.
We have a problem with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We have a domestic
economy in bad shape today. People in this country are losing faith in
our financial markets. We are in a very fragile, shaky period.
What we should be doing in the Senate is rallying to the cause to try
and be as supportive as we can of the President, who is trying to rally
the world and the United Nations and our allies in dealing in a
responsible way with Saddam Hussein, who has thumbed his nose at us for
so many years and has set up a new paradigm in terms of the United
Nations where they will work together to make it very clear they will
not tolerate people such as Saddam Hussein.
I was going to say it is business as usual in the Senate; I just wish
it were business as usual. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle will start to understand the American people are watching what we
are doing here, and it is important that we behave in a way that gives
them confidence that we are more interested in moving our country ahead
than we are in partisan politics.

HUMAN CAPITAL AND THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, since my election to the Senate in
1998, I have given top priority to a public policy issue that seldom
gets the attention it deserves: The challenges of our Federal
Government's civil service system.
For nearly 4 years, I have used my position as a member of the
Governmental Affairs Committee and chairman and ranking member of the
Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, to focus the spotlight
on this critically important issue. As I learned more about the
condition of our Federal Government's personnel system, it became
crystal clear we are in the midst of a human capital crisis in the
United States Government, one which will only get worse unless this
Congress acts decisively to address it.
What is it? Is it real? Why do we have it? The human capital crisis
is, simply stated, the inability of the Federal Government to properly
manage its workforce. Robust personnel management includes the ability
to recruit the best candidates, hire people in a timely manner, award
performance bonuses and other motivational tools to encourage
retention, provide training and professional development opportunities,
and the flexibility to shape a balanced workforce.
Good management includes the flexibility to act quickly and to
compete as an employer of choice in the fast-paced 21st century
knowledge economy.
Unfortunately, at present, the Federal Government's ability to use
such tools is not what it could be. By now, we have all heard the
statistics, and maybe some of my colleagues have not heard them. The
average Federal employee is 47 years old. By 2005, more than 50 percent
of the 1.8 million person Federal workforce will be eligible for early
or regular retirement.
Even more incredible is the fact that by 2005, 67 percent of the
Senior Executive Service will be eligible for regular retirement, and
an additional 21 percent will be able to retire early. This is an
astounding 88 percent of our top-level workers, managers, department
heads, and division chiefs.
I was talking to businesspeople this morning, and they said:
``Explain to us what this is about.''
I said: ``Consider your own businesses. Say during the last 10 years
you were eliminating employees without any regard for how that would
affect your mission, or how high-tech manufacturing and information
technology has changed your business. Then imagine half the remaining
people working in your plant are going to retire soon. Then imagine
that about 88 percent of your top managers are going to retire also.
Where would you be today?'' They got it.
I remind my colleagues, this dire predicament refers to what could
happen in the next 2 to 3 years, but it is virtually impossible to
predict accurately the amount of experience and institutional knowledge
that is literally going to walk out the door at the end of this decade.
Some may ask: Is the human capital situation really that important?
Is it really a crisis in the Federal Government?
Consider some additional evidence we have learned from officials in
some of the agencies that handle national security and finances, such
as the CIA, FBI, FEMA, Social Security Administration, and Department
of Commerce.
CIA Director George Tenet, in recent congressional testimony, said
within 3

[[Page S9212]]

years, between 30 and 40 percent of his workforce will have been there
for less than 5 years.
According to a recent GAO report, more than 70 agencies have foreign
language needs, and staff shortages at those agencies, such as the FBI,
``have adversely affected agency operations and hindered U.S. military,
law enforcement, intelligence, counterterrorism, and diplomatic
efforts.''
Mr. President, do you remember after 9/11? The call went out: We need
people who can speak Arabic and Farsi. Incredible. Ten years after the
Persian Gulf war, we remain actively involved in the Middle East, yet
we do not have enough people who speak Farsi and Arabic in the FBI, the
State Department, or the CIA.
At FEMA, retirements have accelerated since 9-11-2001 as employees
have reevaluated priorities, and nearly 50 percent of the remaining
workforce will be eligible for retirement in the next 18 months.
According to a recent Federal Times survey of more than 2,200
managers at our Social Security Administration, dramatic downsizing in
the ranks of managers and front-line employees has hurt training,
caused burnout, strained resources, reduced managers' effectiveness,
and created disconnects between headquarters and field offices, all at
a time when the agency's workload is skyrocketing.
According to GAO, the Department of Commerce is unable to effectively
monitor U.S. trade laws with foreign countries due to a shortage of
staff with the right expertise.

Mr. President, the evidence is clear. The Federal Government has a
serious human capital crisis. That is why I have sought information
from some of the best minds in the country over the past few years in
public policy and management, and why I have spent so much time
listening to the people closest to the problem.
Furthermore, Mr. President, I believe that if a Federal agency or
department is important enough to receive the hard-earned tax dollars
of my constituents and yours, we have a moral responsibility to see to
it that the people's money is spent wisely. Outdated personnel
practices and lack of training not only put agencies at risk of not
being able to fulfill their mission and provide needed services to the
American people, this also represents wasteful Federal spending. We
simply must provide the flexibility agencies need and give them the
right tools to do their work.
I have sought to attract attention to this issue at every
opportunity. My subcommittee held 10 hearings from July 1999 to March
of 2002. Two of those hearings were held by Chairman Durbin, and I
thank him for his willingness to work with me on this issue.
Earlier this year, Senator Akaka held 2 days of legislative hearings
on civil service reform. I also recognize his leadership and
partnership on this issue. I sincerely appreciate their assistance in
raising the profile of our pressing human capital challenges.
Also, in December of 2000, just before our new President took office,
I released a comprehensive report on this subject ``The Report to the
President: The Crisis in Human Capital'' which summarized our
subcommittee's activities during the 106th Congress and made
recommendations to the incoming administration on how to address the
Government's human capital challenges.
Mr. President, I want you to know I have not been alone in my
assessment of the situation. In 2001, Comptroller General of the United
States David Walker designated human capital on the General Accounting
Office's ``High-Risk List.'' In the past, other areas that were on the
list, such as the Y2K problem, the 2000 census, the Superfund Program,
and the Department of Agriculture's farm loan programs, received
attention and priority, and they no longer threaten the operations of
the Federal Government. As Congress did with these issues, we must
prioritize human capital; otherwise, this crisis will persist.
Dr. Joseph Nye, Dean of Harvard University's Kennedy School of
Government, one of the top public policy schools in the Nation, also
identified the Federal Government's human capital crisis as a critical
issue. The problem truly hit home for his academic institution. During
the nineties, increasing numbers of Kennedy School graduates, despite
their top-notch graduate level training in public policy, chose
employment in the private and nonprofit sectors rather than work for
the Federal Government.
Dr. Nye noted he did not want the Kennedy School to be known as the
second best business school in Cambridge! As a result, he organized a
series of executive sessions during the 2001-2002 academic year,
bringing together approximately 30 leaders on human capital management
from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors: For example,
professors from Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, CEOs, and former senior
officials at the Departments of Treasury, Labor, Office of Federal
Procurement Policy, and Office of Management and Budget. I attended
three of the four sessions and found them productive and insightful.
In addition, the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st
Century, a bipartisan group chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and
Warren Rudman, released a series of reports providing a comprehensive
evaluation of our national security posture.
We have been talking a lot about national security, haven't we? Their
reports included many recommendations on homeland security which we are
considering in this bill that is before the Senate. The Commission's
final report concluded as follows:

As it enters the 21st century, the United States finds
itself on the brink of an unprecedented crisis of competence
in Government.

Unprecedented crisis.

The maintenance of American power in the world depends on
the quality of the U.S. Government's personnel, civil and
military, at all levels. We must take immediate action in the
personnel area to ensure the United States can meet future
challenges.

Furthermore, in his testimony before our committee, former Defense
Secretary and member of the Commission James Schlesinger added:

It is the Commission's view that fixing the personnel
problem is a precondition for fixing virtually everything
else that needs repair in the institutional edifice of U.S.
national security policy.

Mr. President, yet another poignant illustration was offered by FEMA
Director Joe Allbaugh when he testified before a Senate committee
earlier this year. I note FEMA is one of the key agencies in the
proposed Homeland Security Department. In describing his workforce
needs, Director Allbaugh said:
We have not been spending enough time internally on our employees.
Before 9/11, retention was a problem and there was essentially no
recruitment. Over the next 18 months, nearly 50 percent of our agency
is eligible for retirement, and since 9/11, retirements have
accelerated. The people who worked at Ground Zero came to my office
with a different perspective on life. They want to spend more time with
their kids, grandkids, and spouses.
I think these comments represent the feelings of many Federal
employees, and Director Allbaugh's testimony calls attention not only
to the urgent need for reform of our civil service laws, but also for a
completely new mindset for considering the Federal Government's
personnel requirements and workforce culture.
Mr. President, if that is not a compelling call to address this
issue, I do not know what is. Despite all the evidence that significant
human capital challenges exist in the Federal Government, this issue
has not received the attention it deserves. To its credit, the Bush
administration has taken steps to raise the profile of this issue. In
fact, strategic human capital management is one of the five
governmentwide issues targeted for reform in the President's management
agenda, which was released in August of 2001.
Having recently marked the 1-year anniversary of the horrendous and
unprecedented terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11,
the Senate is considering legislation designed to reorganize our
Federal Government in a way that will help our Nation prevent future
such attacks.
Suddenly, in the context of this debate, civil service reform is the
issue du jour. It is an issue which for years has not been
substantively addressed except when agencies become dysfunctional. It
is now front and center in the consideration of the most important

[[Page S9213]]

Government reorganization to take place in our Nation in half a
century. It is about time.
In the debate over homeland security, we have backed into this
personnel issue that has demanded attention for so many years. At least
we are finally taking the first step to address the problem by having a
debate on the subject. We are talking about personnel practices and the
people who make a difference for the Government and deliver the
services.
Unfortunately, however, this debate is limited to the proposed
Department and not to the needs of the entire Federal Government. The
entire Federal Government needs new flexibilities. Congress last
enacted major civil service legislation for the entire Federal
Government 24 years ago in 1978. In today's fast-paced, high-tech
world, the 1970s represent almost prehistoric times when people were
still using typewriters and the only computers were mainframes. To
operate effectively, the Federal Government cannot afford to revise its
personnel laws only every quarter or half century. The basic
classification and compensation system for the Federal Government dates
back to World War II, when the professionals in the civil service had
jobs as clerks and typists and were at GS levels 2 and 3. Today's civil
service professionals are typically GS-12s and GS-13s. So much has
changed over the years, and changing times require new thinking and new
laws--policies that allow flexibility in our Federal Government
civil service system.

The intellectual basis for one of the areas I have sought to reform,
competitive hiring, dates back to the Grant administration! Back then,
our soldiers were using single-shot, repeating rifles, the telegraph
was cutting-edge communications technology, and the primary mode of
transportation was the horse! That was when we started the ``rule of
three.''
I know of no successful business anywhere in the world that is using
a personnel system based on management theory that is more than 50
years old, or which dates from the Industrial Age.
During the 107th Congress, I have worked with some of the Nation's
premier experts on public management to determine what new
flexibilities are necessary to create a world-class 21st century
workforce, and to draft legislation based on their insights. These
individuals include some of our colleagues in Congress, including
Senator Akaka; officials of the Bush administration such as OPM
Director Kay Coles James; former OMB Director Sean O'Keefe, who now
heads up NASA; Clinton administration appointees who spent a lot of
time on this, including Steve Kelman, the former Administrator of the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy; and Elaine Kamarck, a domestic
policy adviser to then-Vice President Gore--this is a bipartisan
effort; Federal employee unions such as the American Federation of
Government Employees, with their president, Bobby Harnage, and the
National Treasury Employees Union, NTEU, and their president, Colleen
Kelley; representatives of public policy organizations such as the
Council for Excellence in Government, Partnership for Public Service,
Private Sector Council, Brookings Institution, National Academy of
Public Administration, and the Volcker Commission; and subject experts
in some of our country's top educational institutions, including Dr.
Jack Donahue of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
I was especially attentive to the concerns of unions, making several
significant changes to my draft legislation since last summer to allay
their uneasiness with some of its flexibilities. I felt it was
important. As someone who dealt with 25 unions when I was mayor, and
with 5 unions when I was governor, I know it is important that unions
be at the table and that their input be taken into consideration.
We made changes that include new language to clarify that the intent
of my proposed early retirement and buy-out authority is workforce
reshaping, not the downsizing of the 90s; as well as the revision of
removal of provisions that enjoyed strong support from other
stakeholders, including the establishment of a public/private exchange
program to cross-pollinate good management ideas between sectors of the
economy.
In other words, we tried to accommodate the concerns of our union
representatives.
Finally, Mr. President, I note that my bill was the subject of a
letter to Chairman Lieberman and other members of the Governmental
Affairs Committee, a letter of support for the legislation was signed
by 29 Kennedy School executive session participants. By combining my
reform proposals with those of the administration, both of which I
introduced last fall, I was able to develop a package of consensus
human capital reforms that I believe will have a positive impact on the
Federal Government's personnel management.
On June 20, along with Senators Thompson and Cochran, I introduced
that consolidated bill, S. 2651, the Federal Workforce Improvement Act,
a measure that is designed to get the right people with the right
skills in the right jobs at the right time.
In July, during its consideration by the Governmental Affairs
Committee, working with Senator Akaka, I successfully amended key
provisions of this bill to the homeland security legislation, and I
really appreciate the bipartisan support we received for those changes.
I am grateful to Senator Akaka for that. I only wish we had put more of
S. 2651 into the homeland security bill.
I hope as we wrap up homeland security--at least I hope we wrap it
up, my colleagues will conclude we should adopt the rest of the
provisions of S. 2651 in this important legislation.
Let us get it done all at once. The provisions we have already
included will have an impact not only on the new Department but on all
Federal agencies. The Voinovich-Akaka language will help the Federal
Government begin to address its human capital challenges, challenges
that extend far beyond the corridors of the proposed Department of
Homeland Security. These flexibilities are not as comprehensive as what
we were proposing for the new Department, but they represent a good
start on the path of reform in this critical area that has not received
adequate attention by past administrations or Congress.
It does the following: Creates Chief Human Capital Officers at the
Federal Government's 24 largest departments and agencies, officials who
have responsibility for selecting, developing, training and managing a
high-quality workforce; establishes an Interagency Chief Human Capital
Officers Council chaired by the OPM Director, to advise and coordinate
the personnel functions of each agency and meet with union
representatives at least annually; requires OPM to design a set of
systems, including metrics, for assessing agencies' human capital
management, something that has been largely ignored; reforms the
competitive service hiring process, allowing agencies, consistent with
merit principles, to use an alternative category ranking method for
selecting new employees instead of the ``Rule of 3,'' making the
process more efficient and fair, a practice that has been very
successful at the Department of Agriculture for the past decade;
provides governmentwide authority for offering voluntary separation
incentive payments and voluntary early retirement, buyouts and early-
outs, for the purposes of workforce reshaping, not downsizing. This
authority, which I was able to secure with legislation 3 years ago, is
currently being used effectively on a limited basis for civilian
employees at the Department of Defense.
It also lifts the total annual compensation cap for senior
executives, allowing performance bonuses to be paid in full in a single
year; and it reduces restrictions on providing academic degree training
to federal employees, thereby emphasizing the importance of individual
professional development.
In light of the fact that there has not been government-wide civil
service reform in a quarter century and, as the Hart-Rudman Commission
noted, personnel is the basis for maintaining national security, it is
absolutely appropriate that this legislation be included in the bill to
create the Department of Homeland Security.
I thank Senators Gramm and Miller of their willingness to consider my
proposals which represent extensive efforts to address the Federal
Government's personnel challenges during my 4 years in the Senate, and
for including the Voinovich-Akaka language in their substitute
amendment. I believe it is a

[[Page S9214]]

strong addition that also has the administration's support.
As I said, I hope we'll be able to add the balance of S. 2651 to the
homeland security bill before we conclude this debate, because these
reforms are badly needed.
The Homeland Security Department is not the first, and not the last,
agency that needs to have greater flexibility. Even more comprehensive
flexibilities and reforms, similar to those proposed in the Gramm-
Miller substitute for the Department of Homeland Security, which I will
describe in a moment, are needed at other agencies as well, including
the Department of Defense and NASA. These agencies may provide the
impetus for Congress to return to this issue next year.
In fact I asked Senator Warner and Senator Levin, when they were
considering the Defense Authorization bill, to give consideration to
accepting some personnel flexibilities that the Department of Defense
wanted. I know from Secretary Rumsfield that they will be coming back
asking for those flexibilities.
It is my hope that the incremental provisions I have developed with
my colleagues and a diverse group of stakeholders over the course of
the last year will assist the rest of the federal government while we
consider next steps.
I would like to take a few moments now to discuss the personnel
provisions in the Gramm-Miller substitute that apply specifically to
the new department. I have worked with Senators Gramm and Miller on
these provisions and believe this language will provide the Department
with the tools it needs to get the job done, and at the same time
respects the rights of those union workers being transferred into the
new department.
I say this because I am close to the leadership in both of our major
unions. They have some concerns. I tried to get the administration to
sign an Executive order continuing partnerships between unions and the
Federal Government. Unfortunately, this did not happen. The
administration also included competitive sourcing on the President's
Management Agenda, setting targets that each department had to meet in
order to receive a green light on the Management Scorecard. I said, if
you tell an agency head that he must outsource 10 percent, 15 percent,
20 percent--instead of trying to shape his department with the people
he has and give them training, he will spend all his time figuring out
how he is going to outsource those jobs.
The proposed Department of Homeland Security will merge nearly
170,000 employees from more than 20 Federal agencies. This is a
momentous undertaking. Although the creation of the Department of
Defense in 1947 combined a larger number of civilian and military
employees, the consolidation we are now contemplating would require
more than a score of different workplace cultures and personnel systems
to be effectively harmonized, all while the Nation entrusts this new
department with the one of Federal Government's most urgent and
important missions: to preserve the homeland and protect American
citizens from harm. In order to accomplish this very tall order, the
President and the new Secretary of Homeland Security will need new
flexibility, and I believe Congress should authorize it.
In recent years, however, Congress has engaged in management by
scandal, only granting more flexibilities when agencies under-perform!
For example, the FAA, IRS and SEC each received special personnel
authorities over the last decade, but only after each of these agencies
was singled out for its failure to achieve its mission.
The Bush Administration has correctly pointed out that we cannot wait
for a similar occurrence at the Department of Homeland Security, and it
has justifiably sought broad flexibility for the new department before
any mission failures occur.
On a related matter, Mr. President, it is interesting to note that
the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman Commission form the intellectual
basis for large portions of the underlying legislation we are debating
today. Yet, while we are paying close attention to the Commission's
recommendation to establish a new Department of Homeland Security, we
are not seriously considering its recommendations to modernize the
civil service system. We simply must take these necessary steps now.
The personnel provisions in the Gramm-Miller substitute represent a
good-faith effort to modernize the personnel system for the new
department.
The Quinn-Portman amendment would preserve employee rights, including
hiring and promotion based on merit and equal pay for equal work, and
would protect employees from improper political influence and reprisal
for whistle-blowing. Employees would still be protected from prohibited
personnel practices, such as illegal discrimination, politicization of
the hiring or promotion processes, and violation of veterans'
preference requirements. I notice my friend, Senator Akaka was talking
about the fact that whistle blowing is not involved in the amendment.
We specifically talk about protection of employees against reprisal for
whistle blowing.
Furthermore, employees would still have the right to organize,
bargain collectively, and participate through labor organizations of
their own choosing in decisions that affect them.
First, the substitute features House-passed language proposed by
Representatives Jack Quinn and Rob Portman. In June, the President sent
to Congress a blueprint for the personnel system he envisioned at the
new department. The President realized that Congress would flesh out
many of the issues in his proposal, and that is just what happened. The
House-passed version is less flexible than what the Administration
originally requested--it is really important to understand that--but it
is designed to deal with the personnel flexibility sought by the
President, and to address the collective bargaining rights that many of
our colleagues seek to protect.
The Quinn-Portman amendment retains most of title V's provisions.
This is not as broad as Transportation Security Administration to which
Congress gave blanket exemptions from title V last November.
The language also requires that the new department collaborate with
unions and other employee organizations in creating its personnel
system. In addition, it includes procedures to ensure that exclusive
bargaining units are represented by individuals designated by the union
itself. It also provides certain safeguards for employees as the
proposed department develops a new system for employee appeals.
In order to ensure that the new human resources management system is
developed in collaboration with the unions, the Quinn-Portman amendment
provides for direct involvement by employee representatives in three
stages of the development process.
In the first stage, as the human resources management system is being
designed, the Secretary and OPM Director must provide a written
description of the proposed system or adjustment to the system; allow
each employee representative at least 60 days to review and make
recommendations on the proposal; and give any such recommendations full
and fair consideration in deciding whether or how to proceed with the
proposal.
At the second stage, when the Secretary and OPM Director decide to
implement a human resources management proposal, they must, prior to
implementation: give each employee representative details of the
decision along with information upon which the decision was based; give
each employee representative an opportunity to make recommendations;
and give such recommendations full and fair consideration. If any
employee representatives' recommendations are not proposed to be
implemented, the Secretary and Director must explain why.
During the third stage, once a human resource management system
proposal is implemented, the Secretary and OPM Director must develop a
method for each employee representative to participate in any further
planning or development.
The Quinn-Portman amendment also fleshes out the Administration's
original proposal by providing necessary flexibilities in six key
areas: performance appraisals, classification, pay rates and systems,
labor-management relations, adverse actions, and appeals. Each of these
areas would be open to modernization, subject to the explicit
limitations included in the language to protect employees, which, as I
have

[[Page S9215]]

just delineated, are comprehensive, and rooted in current civil service
law.
We currently have pending a second-degree amendment to the Gramm-
Miller amendment from Senators Ben Nelson, Chafee and Breaux.
They would like to reduce the six areas of flexibility to four. I
happen to believe that the administration, in order to create this new
Department, is going to need those six areas of flexibility to get the
job done.
Based on my experience as mayor and Governor, I thought it also would
be a good idea to have the Secretary negotiate as opposed to consult
with union representatives in the six areas in which the administration
is seeking flexibility. My belief in that regard comes about as a
result of my experience over the years. In other words, after the
consultation and the negotiation occurred, there would be an impasse
panel that could be appealed to for a final decision.
I thought that would be helpful because it would make the negotiation
more robust and there would be fewer areas of disagreement. Once it was
over, the parties could say the matter was taken to a third party and
decided. That is the way it should be decided.
In other words, and I want to point out to my colleagues, the success
or failure of the administration to get the job done is going to depend
on the relationship they develop with our labor unions and other
Federal employee organizations. If there is consensus, if there is
openness and a sense of fairness, this will be a great success. On the
contrary, if it is an adversarial relationship, one that is not open,
one where we don't have the discourse that we need, it will be a
failure.
I have reorganized as Governor. I have combined departments as
Governor. And I have found that the only way you can be successful is
to work with organized labor on a consensus basis and work things out.
Without working things out, it will not be a success. I have brought
this to the attention of the administration several times. I am
confident that with the process that is in the Gramm-Miller amendment,
the process will be open and fair.
I have talked to Kay Coles James, Director of the Office of Personnel
Management; I have talked to Mark Everson, Deputy Director for
Management at OMB, and many other people. They understand that they
have to build trust with the unions if they expect to have a successful
Department. If they don't work together and achieve a consensus, we are
in big trouble.
Finally, the Gramm-Miller substitute includes the House-passed
language proposed by Representatives Connie Morella and Chris Shays--
with an additional provision that I have recommended. This language
would, for the first time, limit the current authority of the President
to exclude an agency or agency subdivision from participation in a
collective bargaining unit.
Under current law, the President may exclude participation in a
collective bargaining unit upon determining that the entity has as a
primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative or
national security work and that permitting the entity to have union
organizations would be inconsistent with national security requirements
and considerations.
Under current law, the President may exclude participation in a
collective bargaining unit upon determining that the entity has a
primary function of intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative or
national security work, and that permitting the entity to have union
organization would be inconsistent with national security requirements
and considerations.
I want to make this clear to my colleagues.
The Morella-Shays language would limit the President's current
authority only with regard to the new department. It would prohibit the
President from using the exclusionary authority unless the mission and
responsibilities of a transferred agency materially change and a
majority of the employees within such an agency have as their primary
duty intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative work directly
related to terrorism.
The language does provide, however, that the President could waive
the above limitations on his authority if he determines in writing that
their use would have a substantial adverse impact on the department's
ability to protect homeland security.
Senators Gramm and Miller have agreed to add language that I proposed
requiring that, when the President executes his authority under the
Morella-Shays language, he must notify Congress of the reasons for his
determination at least 10 days prior to the issuance of his written
order.
What our unions are worried about is arbitrary and capricious action
on the part of the President exempting members from membership in their
unions.
This language basically says that we, for the first time, in the
Homeland Security Department, will limit that power of the President,
and if he exercises it under Morella-Shays, it means his decisionmaking
will be subject to a filing in Federal court as to whether he has
abused his discretion in exercising that power.
This is very important. If he decides to waive it and says, no, I
don't want to do it by Morella-Shays, I want to go ahead and exercise
my power, that basically says the President has to put it in writing,
and send it to Congress. The unions will see it, the majority will see
it, the minority will see it, the media will see it, and public
personnel experts will see it. I have tried to convince some of my
colleagues that this process is open to public scrutiny.
I have to say to my colleagues, how can you ask this President of the
United States--at a time when we have a national security crisis--to
give up the same authority held by all other Presidents since 1962--
when we create this new Department of Homeland Security?
The fact that this administration has agreed to set up criteria and
limit the President's authority to certain specific reasons for
exercising it--to then say to the President, by the way, you can't do
that now. To say, 'you have to send it to Congress 10 days in advance'
is more than enough limitation on this historic executive authority. I
say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I say to my friends
in the unions, that, first of all, I don't believe this President is
anti-labor or trying to short-change or treat our employees improperly.
Second of all, even if he thought of doing something like that, or
somebody recommended it, he would have to explain the rationale in
writing, and allow it to be held up to public scrutiny 10 days prior to
his order taking effect.
Mr. President, I have been one of the leaders on civil service reform
during the last two sessions of Congress. I believe I have probably
dedicated more time than any Senator to addressing the Federal
Government's personnel interests. I have tried to raise the profile of
this issue and then work in good faith with all interested parties to
develop solutions. Based on my work, I want my colleagues to know I
believe the personnel provisions in the Gramm-Miller substitute can go
a long way towards putting personnel management in the executive branch
back on track.
I just hope that somehow in the next couple of days we can work
something out on both sides of the aisle so that people feel
comfortable that we can protect the rights of organized labor and at
the same time give the President of the United States the authority and
the flexibilities he needs to get the job done.
I hope that after this debate is over, the well is not so poisoned
that when the administration and the unions begin to sit down and talk
with each other, they can work together to arrive at a consensus so
that this reorganization can be successful and fruitful, and we can
achieve what we all want to achieve to secure our homeland.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Ohio, who I think is
such a good legislator--
Mr. VOINOVICH. Could the Senator speak a little louder? I am wearing
a hearing aid.
Mr. REID. I was saying nice things about the Senator. I will be happy
to speak louder.
I was telling my friend from Ohio, who is such a good legislator, I
would like to at a subsequent time today make a unanimous consent
request that we vote on cloture on Gramm-Miller tomorrow. It is now set
for Friday.

[[Page S9216]]

We want to move this legislation along. I think that is what we need to
do.
The Senator doesn't need to respond to that at all. I just wanted to
let him know that we hope to work something out in the next couple of
days. I hope we can work something out tomorrow. We want to move this
legislation along.
I have to say this: Having been on this bill for the fourth week, I
am concerned that maybe people down on Pennsylvania Avenue don't want
this bill. We have done everything we can to move this legislation. It
doesn't appear that people on the other side of the aisle want it
moved.
For example, Senator Byrd's amendment was pending for several days.
At any time, Senator Byrd's amendment was subject to a motion to table.
Everyone knew there were enough votes to table that amendment. But for
days, the minority chose not to do that.

So I hope that I am wrong. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that there
are as many on your side of the aisle as on our side of aisle who want
this legislation to pass. But I have the feeling now, I say to my
friend from Ohio, is that the minority does not want to move the
homeland security bill.
We will see in the next----
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I beg to differ
with the Senator from Nevada. We do want to move forward with this
homeland security bill. We do want it to pass. We know how necessary it
is for the President to have this new Department, with the flexibility
he needs to merge more than 20 agencies.
From my perspective, I cannot figure out why the Majority has been
filing cloture motions on some of these amendments, when I think they
could make a motion to table instead. I am still trying to figure that
out. I may need to get the Parliamentarian to explain what this is all
about.
But I can assure you, that after the time I have spent on this issue
with many of my colleagues, including many on the other side of the
aisle, we want this to move forward.
We would like to have a vote up or down on the President's amended
proposal, which is contained in the Gramm-Miller amendment. We would
like to have a vote on the recommendations from Senators Nelson,
Breaux, and Chafee, and see where the Senate stands on that amendment.
We have to move this along. We cannot go home, I think, without
getting this done. I know this has gotten to be pretty partisan. But I
honestly believe that if we can sit down and start talking about some
of this a little bit more, we could work something out and move ahead.
I assure the distinguished Senator from Nevada that we are not
delaying this. We want to move forward. And I will certainly do
anything I can to help cooperate in this regard.
But we want a vote on the Gramm-Miller amendment. We also want a vote
on the amendment of Senators Nelson and Chafee and Breaux.
Mr. REID. I would simply say--the majority leader is here, and I
don't want to take a lot of time--the majority of the Senators over
here want a bill. I am confident a majority of the Senators want a
bill. This is the fourth week we have tried to do it.
We are trying very hard. We should be able to do it. It appears to me
that some people cannot take yes for an answer. We are willing to give
a vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas, but he says
he does not want a vote unless he can have the first vote. It is just a
lot of what appears to me, and I am sure to the people in Nevada and
the public, to be a lot of silliness.
We want to move forward with this legislation. As the Senator from
Ohio has said, you want it passed. We want it passed. Hopefully, we can
do something. But it appears we are not getting impetus from the
leadership on your side of the aisle and the White House to get this
done.
I am sorry to have taken the leader's time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Who controls the
floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nobody controls the floor at this time.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I do not want to interrupt the statement
of the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I don't see anybody else seeking
recognition on my side of the aisle. I yield the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I came to the floor for a couple of
reasons. One was to reiterate what I think I heard the assistant
Democratic leader say with regard to our desire to have a vote. As we
have indicated publicly and privately, we are prepared for an up-or-
down vote. We want a vote on the Nelson-Breaux amendment. And once that
vote is taken, we are more than willing to vote on the Gramm amendment.
So there should be no question about that.
I think I heard the Senator from Nevada say that there are some who
cannot take yes for an answer. We are prepared to offer that vote any
time. I would hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
would take our offer in the manner in which it was intended. We hope to
have a vote up or down on that particular amendment.

____________________