Phil Gramm

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 4 minutes if the Senator is going to speak. I want to conclude with one remark.

Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield.

Mr. GRAMM. Well, I appreciate that. Let me remove ``the Bible'' and put ``teaching'' or ``holy script.'' What we tend to do with revered documents--whether it is the Constitution, the Koran, or some other holy teaching--is we take from it what we like and we tend to leave out what we do not like, and that was the point I was making. I thank my colleague for making the point. The point I want to make beyond that is, I do believe an objective reading of the election shows a desire, an almost desperation of the American people, to see action taken on a homeland security bill, though I am not claiming necessarily this bill. The second argument I hope opponents of the bill will listen to is, this bill does represent a compromise. The President would have not been subject to much criticism if, after the election, he had said: Look, I have already compromised too much on this issue. Given the results of the election and the mandate, I am going to get exactly what I want, and so as a result I am going to stop negotiating. We are going to go home, come back in January, and do it exactly my way. He could have done that, and I do not think people could have been critical of him. But the President did not do that. Even though he perceived, and many others perceived, that he got a mandate in the election on this issue, he came back and compromised again. He compromised again by not giving public employee labor unions the ability to veto a homeland security reorganization, but by strengthening their ability to have input into it. That represented an additional compromise. The bill before us is not a bill that all of our colleagues support. I know our dear colleague from West Virginia is very sincere in his opposition, but I say this: The first major issue that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia raised, in opposition to the original bill, was that it interfered with Congress's power of the purse by giving the President power--and the Senator and others argued arbitrary power--to rewrite appropriation bills. I argue to our colleagues that whether they support or oppose this bill, that concern was responded to, and the bill before us sets an amount that the President has flexibility in, but it gives him no power, without reprogramming--which means the approval of the chairman and the ranking member--to move money around. I simply say to my colleagues this is a compromise, even though it may not be one that the Senator finds supportable. But I ask the following question: Does the Senator believe the bill that will be adopted in the new Congress will be closer to what he wants than this bill is? Does he have a guarantee that in the new Congress the concerns that were dealt with here will be dealt with? I guess really what I am saying--and not doing a very effective job in saying it--is the following: I ask my colleagues who oppose the bill to look at it in its totality, to look at the compromises that are in it, protecting our right to the purse, giving public employees an opportunity to have an input but not a veto. We all know the bill is going to pass now or it is going to pass later, and so will the bill passed in the new Congress be more to the liking of my colleagues who would vote no today than this bill? The answer is probably no. Finally, the one thing we all agree on is, in creating this new department - whether it is a good idea or a bad one--if we do not do it now and do it 3 months later, we have lost the 3 months. So the bill we would do in 3 months might very well be less to the liking of the people who oppose it and we will be doing it 3 months later. I think if I were on the other side, what I would probably conclude is I am not for the bill and I am going to vote against it, but doing it in the new Congress with the makeup of the new Congress will probably produce a bill that I like less and that the victories that have been won in it--and there have been some; this is a compromise-- would be lost, could be changed, and waiting 3 months to get a bill that might be worse from my point of view is not a good decision.

Mr. GRAMM. Whether it was this one or another one, I think that is open to interpretation, but I think they wanted to see it passed. I certainly will yield.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we have drifted into a debate which I think we should be engaged in now, and that is a debate on whether we should vote for cloture on the pending amendment and, therefore, cloture to proceed with homeland security. At this late hour, I do not think anybody is going to be convinced in terms of whether this is a good thing or a bad thing as it is written. I think people have pretty well reached that decision. I simply would like to make a couple of points that I think are important in making the decision. I begin by saying I do not think anybody set out with a goal of homeland security becoming an issue that sort of divided us along party lines. I do not think anybody had that intention, but the net result is it happened. We now are at a point where we have one last opportunity to do this bill. I make two arguments for doing it that I think are strong, and I make them not to the people who are for it--they are already convinced and I hope they will not listen because I do not want to change their mind. I want to make my argument to the people who are on the other side of the issue. The first argument is that we have had an election. It is very easy in elections to read into them what you want to read into them. Elections are sort of like the Bible in the sense that everybody finds something in them that they want to find and they neglect the things they do not want to see. I do think one of the themes of the election was a desperate desire of the American people to see a homeland security bill passed.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. We have 4\1/2\ minutes. Ten minutes.

Mr. GRAMM. Will the Republican leader yield to me?

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, could the Senator have an additional 10 minutes so we could discuss this?

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, the Senate today is considering S. 1742, the Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act of 2002. This is an important issue, and it is proper for the Senate to be giving it consideration. While the text of this bill is seriously flawed and needs careful work and refinement in order for it to have a significantly positive effect in curbing identity theft, I believe that passage of this legislation by the Senate will be seen as an indication of the importance that the Senate attaches to relieving the disruption caused in the lives of victims of these crimes. When the Senate returns to this issue in the next Congress, I hope that the problems with this bill can be resolved, that the complexity of the issues involved can be adequately considered so that the legislation focuses on the real culprits without penalizing law-abiding citizens and businesses, and without the substantial confusion to the enforcement responsibilities of federal financial regulators that the draft before us would cause. The text in its current form would also expand opportunities for predatory lawsuits, creating new victims, and we must avoid that. We do little good for the country that way.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, this homeland security bill has been debated for 7 weeks. We have pretty well talked about the issue enough. I do believe we are on the verge of acting on it, so I wanted to come over this afternoon, given that we are going to have a vote on cloture tomorrow, to make a few comments. First, I do not think anybody set out with the goal of turning this into a partisan issue. We came very close to that happening. In the aftermath of the election, I think we have pulled back from that. I thank the President for that. In the aftermath of an election where the President triumphed--I do not think there is another fair word-- there might have been some who in those circumstances would have said: Let's take this over to next year and I will write it exactly like I want it. I think we could have all understood had the President taken that approach. In the aftermath of the election, he had the right to take that approach, but I would have to say I admire the President for the fact he did not take that approach. There are not many people, after validating an issue in an election, who are still willing to compromise, but that is what the President did. We now have a bill that will give the President the tools he needs. We have responded to legitimate concerns that have been raised. We have strengthened to some degree the ability of those people who are going to be affected by the second largest governmental reorganization in the history of our country to be heard, but on the other hand not have the power to obstruct; to have input but not the ability to dictate. I think that represents a reasonable compromise. Senator Byrd raised probably the most significant issue in that the original proposal would have dramatically transferred power from the legislative branch to the executive branch by giving the President the ability to reorder priorities in appropriations. If the Constitution is clear on one subject, it is that Congress has the power of the purse. I believe we have reached a reasonable compromise in that area. I know Senator Byrd is not for this bill, but I believe a major concern he raised has been dealt with, and I think his input improved the bill. If I were writing the bill by myself, it would be different than the compromise we have reached, but to be honest it would not be much different. I say to people who are opposed to this bill to look at the alternative as we come down to the final moments before it is adopted. The alternative, it seems to me, is to wait for another bill until next year. For those who oppose the bill and for those who believe it gives the President too much power, I ask them to honestly ask the question: Do they believe waiting 3 more months in a new Congress, under new leadership, they will get a bill more to their liking than the bill that is before us? I believe an honest answer to that question is no. I also believe 3 months does make a difference. Finishing the work in this Congress is important. Getting on with this Department is the right thing to do. So whichever side my colleagues are on--whether they are on the side of Senator Thompson and the President and believe that this is a good bill that ought to be adopted now, or whether they oppose it because they believe it gives the President too much power-- it seems to me the right thing to do is to finish this job now, because if we wait until we come back in the next Congress, it will be February before we can get to it. The bill that will be adopted in February will be less to the liking of the President's opponents on this issue than the bill before us, and we will have squandered 3 months. This is an incredible issue that does not come along very often, where at this point in time, no matter where one stands on the issue, it seems to me a plausible, logical, reasonable, and I believe correct case can be made that we should go ahead and act. I am not expecting 100 Senators to vote for the bill, but I do hope people will allow us to go forward and adopt the bill. I do hope we get a strong vote. It does make a difference whether a bill passes 51 or 65, especially when we are trying to do something that is going to be very difficult and the President is going to need all the help he can get. I thank Senator Thompson for his leadership and his in-depth knowledge on this issue which has been an indispensable ingredient for those of us who have tried to work on it. I thank Senator Lieberman. Earlier, when I was off doing something else, I understand Senator Lieberman said he intended to vote for cloture. I think that is an act of leadership, and I applaud him for it. I thank my dear colleague Zell Miller, who has worked with me on the substitute that Senator Thompson has offered on our behalf. I think Senator Miller's leadership has been indispensable on this bill. He has a way of getting down to the bottom line of what an issue is about and express it in terms that people can understand, and that has been a very important ingredient in getting us to this point. I am ready to move forward. It is my understanding we are going to vote on cloture tomorrow. I hope after that cloture vote we could move to a vote on final passage tomorrow. If that is not to be the case and we carry it over until early next week, then we carry it over into early next week. But I do believe it is important we pass this bill in this Congress. The House will finish its business this afternoon and will leave town. They have no intention of coming back. This is not really a take it or leave it kind of deal because this deal was negotiated over the weekend. We had broad input. We have some 53 Members who are committed to voting for this compromise. So it clearly has a majority, and I am hopeful that we will see that majority prevail. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to authorize the President to negotiate free trade agreements with the countries of Turkey and Afghanistan. Trade is a powerful engine in the promotion of prosperity and in the strengthening of freedom. The more we promote trade, the more we benefit and the more our trading partners benefit. The legislation builds upon the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002, enacted earlier in the year. Within the structure of that Act, each of these bills would give the sanction of the Congress to undertaking free trade negotiations with Turkey and with Afghanistan. That sanction would remain in place for five years, ample time to conclude these important agreements. Turkey has correctly been called the eastern anchor of NATO, an ally of the United States across some five decades in the effort to keep the world free. Turkey is a secular nation with a predominantly Muslim population and historic ties to the United States. For nearly one hundred years Turkey has served as an important force for modernization in the eastern Mediterranean and central Asian area. Turkey's successes have provided important examples to many of the new nations of the former Soviet union located on the southern border of Russia. As these nations map out their future, they do so with frequent reference to the experience of Turkey. A free trade agreement with Turkey would mean that we would be a lasting, positive part of that future, contributing to Turkey's continued growth and democratic development, and influence that would be sure to have a beneficial effect on Turkey's neighbors. Such an agreement would operate well in light of our existing free trade agreements with Israel and with Jordan. Afghanistan is at an historical turning point. What better way to rebuild the Afghan economy and set the Afghan people firmly on the road to prosperity than with a free trade agreement with the United States? In addition, history has shown the powerful effect of trade and other economic freedoms in creating a stable basis for the growth and maintenance of political freedom. In Germany, Italy, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Chile, and elsewhere, we have seen authoritarian regimes replaced by stable, free societies preceded by the growth of trade and economic freedom. A free trade agreement between the United States and Afghanistan can and should be a powerful tool in our efforts to bring peace and prosperity to a land that has known little of either. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the two bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to authorize the President to negotiate free trade agreements with the countries of Turkey and Afghanistan. Trade is a powerful engine in the promotion of prosperity and in the strengthening of freedom. The more we promote trade, the more we benefit and the more our trading partners benefit. The legislation builds upon the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002, enacted earlier in the year. Within the structure of that Act, each of these bills would give the sanction of the Congress to undertaking free trade negotiations with Turkey and with Afghanistan. That sanction would remain in place for five years, ample time to conclude these important agreements. Turkey has correctly been called the eastern anchor of NATO, an ally of the United States across some five decades in the effort to keep the world free. Turkey is a secular nation with a predominantly Muslim population and historic ties to the United States. For nearly one hundred years Turkey has served as an important force for modernization in the eastern Mediterranean and central Asian area. Turkey's successes have provided important examples to many of the new nations of the former Soviet union located on the southern border of Russia. As these nations map out their future, they do so with frequent reference to the experience of Turkey. A free trade agreement with Turkey would mean that we would be a lasting, positive part of that future, contributing to Turkey's continued growth and democratic development, and influence that would be sure to have a beneficial effect on Turkey's neighbors. Such an agreement would operate well in light of our existing free trade agreements with Israel and with Jordan. Afghanistan is at an historical turning point. What better way to rebuild the Afghan economy and set the Afghan people firmly on the road to prosperity than with a free trade agreement with the United States? In addition, history has shown the powerful effect of trade and other economic freedoms in creating a stable basis for the growth and maintenance of political freedom. In Germany, Italy, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Chile, and elsewhere, we have seen authoritarian regimes replaced by stable, free societies preceded by the growth of trade and economic freedom. A free trade agreement between the United States and Afghanistan can and should be a powerful tool in our efforts to bring peace and prosperity to a land that has known little of either. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the two bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, if the distinguished Democratic floor leader will yield, we had met and canvased our Members on the original agreement that we had reached. That agreement entailed bringing up the Defense authorization bill, having a 75-minute time limit on it, voting on it, and then having Senator Thompson be recognized to offer the Gramm-Miller substitute. Subsequently, the Senator from Nevada made a change in that agreement which has not been canvased on my side. So I am required to object to the unanimous consent request as the Senator has changed it. But the original one we would stand ready to accept.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, maybe something could be worked out, but that was not part of the agreement that we had sent over. On that basis, I have to object.

Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object----

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I think I have 5 minutes and then we have a vote, so I will try to be brief. It is fair to say at the beginning of the process, no one conceived there could be partisanship on homeland security. Neither party sought the partisanship, but yet in the process it came. We ended up as the session ended with a situation no one may have chosen, but the reality was every Democrat except one was opposed to the President's program, and every Republican except one was for it. The definition of partisanship is when you have an issue that produces a division right down the middle aisle. That is what we had. We had an election. I do think the American people spoke clearly on this issue. If there was a dominant theme in the election, it was that the American people were unhappy that we had not found our way to a bipartisan solution to our homeland security dilemma. Today we have an opportunity to fix that. We have the opportunity to fix it by the following procedure. We need to vote yes on cloture on the Gramm amendment, which I intend to vote yes on. There will then be a motion to table the Lieberman amendment which, if it is successful, and I hope it will be successful, will knock down the whole superstructure that has been piled on top of the underlying Homeland Security bill. That will give us an opportunity to offer a bipartisan compromise that has been hammered out over the last 4 or 5 days. There is, at least in terms of what people have said in the reported media, a majority of the membership that is in favor of that compromise. Even as we speak, the House is debating a rule under which they will consider that compromise. Tonight, about 6 p.m., it is my understanding they will vote on that compromise. If they adopt it--and we have every reason to believe they will adopt it overwhelmingly--if we do the same, we will have been successful in a bipartisan effort to provide for Homeland Security. I conclude by simply noting when we have the kind of debate we had for 6 weeks, it is easy to have hard feelings about it, it is easy to say ``I want to prevail'' after all the effort. I hope now we have had an election, we have all had an opportunity to go home and tell our side of the story, we can now come together. I do think we have a good agreement. It does not do everything I want to do. It does some things in ways that I would choose not to do. Overall, it has two redeeming qualities. One, it gives the President the power he needs to get the job done, and the President and all those who would be working with him to create and run this new Department say with this compromise, they can get the job done. Second, at least if everyone stays where they said they are, we have a majority of Members willing to vote for it. No matter what you think, or no matter what perfection would be, if, after 6 weeks of very difficult partisan debate, you have a proposal that will get the job done, a proposal that is supported by the person who has the constitutional responsibility for doing the job--the President--a proposal that those who would implement say they can make work, and a proposal the majority of Members have decided they are for, I am hoping we can get a very big vote here and put this behind us. Finally, in the waning days of a session, obviously any individual member has extraordinary power. If someone decides they want to try to disrupt the process, they can. This is not an extreme proposal. It is a compromise. It has dealt with many of the issues that have been raised, from the appropriations issue Senator Byrd raised to numerous other issues discussed. I hope we will today begin the process that will quickly allow us to pass this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the majority leader to have the right to the floor. Reserving the right to object--if the Chair would be generous in giving me an opportunity to explain why--when the majority leader finishes his unanimous consent request and his statement, I would like to have 10 minutes to respond.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me conclude by simply saying this. What normally happens under these circumstances is this: We are not going to pass a homeland security bill and Americans are going to the polls; they are basically going to make a decision. They might decide that Senator Daschle is right, that the President doesn't care anything about national security, that he is out to bust the unions, and that we really don't need to change business as usual in Washington as it relates to homeland security. I think that is a possibility. People might reach that conclusion. But I think there is an alternative possibility. I think people are going to reach a conclusion that when it came down to making a hard decision that meant changing business as usual in Washington, that required us to change a system for national security reasons and the protection of the life and health of our people, that meant going against the way things have been done here for 50 or 60 years, that the Democrats are unwilling to make that change and the President wanted to make the change. I just remind my colleagues that when Senator Daschle was talking about the President's efforts at union busting, we have had three major commissions that have looked at our current Government system--the civil service system--in areas of national security and terrorism. The two major ones are the Volcker Commission and the Rudman Commission. Paul Volcker was a Democrat-appointed head of the Federal Reserve Bank and one of the most respected people in America. Warren Rudman is one of our former colleagues and was one of our most respected Republican members. Both of them headed up blue ribbon commissions to look at our ability to respond to threats to our national security, and both of those commissions concluded unanimously that we needed to change the current civil service system as it related to the ability to promote on merit and the ability to put the right person in the right place at the right time. That is what the President has asked for. So like so many issues in the greatest democracy in history, this is one where you have to choose. The President cannot succeed because he is one vote short. I don't believe the Democrats could pass their bill because I think some of their own members would not vote for it on final passage, and none of our members are going to vote for a bill that the President said he will veto. So we have an impasse, and it comes down to a choice. It is not a choice that Senator Reid is going to make, or one that I am going to make. It is a choice the people back home are going to make. They have heard each side with its own focus, twist, spin, or whatever the conventional wisdom is. But, ultimately, it is the judgment of the American people that we are going to stand by, and I am willing to stand by it. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me try one more. I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 5005, the homeland defense bill, be brought before the Senate; that each side have three amendments and that they have an opportunity, going back and forth, to offer those amendments; that the Gramm-Miller amendment be the pending amendment; that when each side has had an opportunity to debate and vote on their three amendments, that there be a vote on final passage of the bill.

Mr. GRAMM. I have no objection.

Mr. GRAMM. I could not hear the Senator.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I love my colleague from Nevada. He is such a sweet man. His heart is so good. His views on things sometimes are not so good. But as long as we have people around like him, the place works pretty well. Let me respond to his remarks, and I will try another unanimous consent request on it. What I have propounded is exactly what Senator Miller and the President and I have asked; that is, to have an up-or-down vote on our amendment. My colleague from Nevada would like to do it so that people can vote yes and no within an hour and so that people can, in essence, be in a position where they might deceive the public, yet we are no closer to passage than we were before we started. I just don't think that makes any sense. I am not claiming that deception is the intent, but I do believe that would be the result. Let me try another approach. I ask unanimous consent that the Nelson amendment be adopted, with one amendment, and that amendment is that nothing in this bill shall be construed as taking away a national security power and a power to protect America that the President had on September 11, and that after the Nelson amendment is adopted with this provision added to it, the Gramm-Miller amendment be in order; that it be debated for 3 hours, and that there be an up-or-down vote on that amendment, and at the conclusion of that amendment, whether it is successful or not, we have a vote on final passage.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to respond to our dear majority leader. I am coming to the end of my Senate career, and I do not want to end it by getting into fussing and fighting with anybody. Let me first respond by explaining what is wrong with this unanimous consent request and why it does not move the ball forward in protecting Americans. I then want to propose several alternatives, any one of which would move the ball forward. Then I want to respond to some of the comments the majority leader made. First of all, under this unanimous consent request, we do not bring homeland security back up. If you read the unanimous consent request, you see that it says, ``Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes. . . .'' Well, who controls when the Senate resumes consideration of homeland security? The majority leader. So this unanimous consent request does not even bring the issue back before the Senate. Everybody knows today is the last day of the session. Secondly, what this unanimous consent request says is, we will vote on Gramm-Miller and, if it is successful, we will turn around and vote on an amendment that completely reverses Gramm-Miller, and we will do that within an hour. And then the debate is not over. The majority leader has the power to continue the debate, stop the debate, or pull the bill down. We are no closer to passage of a bill after these two votes occur than we are before the two votes occur. This unanimous consent request has nothing to do with moving the ball forward on homeland security. It has everything to do with deception because, under this request, there is not even a second vote unless Gramm-Miller passes. Then, if it passes, we turn right around, within 1 hour, and vote to reverse the vote, letting those who are in hotly contested elections have the incredible possibility, in 1 day, within 1 hour, to be on three sides of a two-sided issue. It would allow people to vote for Gramm-Miller and, since it is the President's compromise, with the President, and then turn around, an hour later, and to completely gut it and to go back to where we are now with the bill that is before the Senate. So we don't go to it now. We have no control over when or if we ever go to it in this Congress. We can vote yes and no, back to back, within an hour, so people can be on both sides of the issue. Senator Daschle referred to Max Cleland. He could vote for Gramm-Miller and turn around in an hour and completely gut Gramm-Miller, and be on three sides of a two-sided issue. Now, there are alternatives that would be acceptable, and I am going to propound several of them shortly. But let me first address some of the issues the majority leader addressed. First of all, there is this idea that we don't want a homeland security bill. Everybody wants a homeland security bill. I have never suggested the Democrats don't want a homeland security bill. They love homeland security. Their problem is, they love public employee labor unions more. Their problem is that this isn't like Iraq. Saddam Hussein has no powerful political allies in America. So we had some differences of opinion, but we were able to work them out. We were able to go forward on a bipartisan basis. We can't work this out because the public employee labor unions are the largest contributors to Democrat candidates. And as a result, you can't be for letting the President have the tools he needs on national security and be with the public employee labor unions. We have to choose, and we have been unable to make that choice. There have been some good-faith efforts to bridge the gap, but we have been unsuccessful. In terms of what has happened, the President sent a bill up on June 6. The House adopted a bipartisan measure on a huge, bipartisan, lopsided vote of 295 to 132. Democrats and Republicans voted together to give the President the power he asked for--which is some flexibility in 6 out of the 71 titles of the Civil Service Act--to allow him the ability to put the right person in the right place at the right time. This idea that this would bring back cronyism and discrimination is totally invalid. The Gramm-Miller amendment and the bill adopted in the House required that the President not act in arbitrary and capricious ways, not discriminate, and strictly limited his decisions to merit and performance. So that is not really an issue as to what we are talking about. This is the calendar. The calendar points out that the Senate has yet to act. Every time we have come close to reaching a bipartisan agreement, we basically have run into the hurdle that there is strong opposition to those who would like to change the system as it relates to homeland security. So we have the incredible specter that we have come to the end of the session. The President over and over again has compromised. The Gramm-Miller amendment, according to Senator Lieberman, contains 95 percent of the changes he sought in the President's bill. If 95 percent is not compromise, what is compromise? Finally, on the point of compromise, to stand up and suggest that the Nelson amendment and the Gramm-Miller amendment are identical simply does not bear up under scrutiny. Under the Nelson amendment, the President would lose national security powers he had on September 11. How many Americans would feel comfortable knowing that the Congress is trying to weaken the President's ability to respond to terrorism in the name of homeland security? I think it would come as a shock to most people to realize that is the case. But nobody denies it is the case. In fact, when we offered the Gramm-Miller amendment, I put a little provision at the end of it, sort of as bait, that said: Nothing in this bill shall be construed as taking power away from the President to protect America that he had on September 11. So when the Nelson amendment was offered, guess what the last provision of it was. It struck that language. I don't think anybody is deceived. I don't think they are going to be deceived by a unanimous consent request that does not bring up homeland security, that does not move us toward final passage, and that allows Members to vote yes and no on the same day 1 hour apart. There are ways we can move the ball forward. I want to address those. Let me also say, the majority leader brought up Max Cleland. The issue here is, are you with the President on homeland security or are you against him? That is what the issue is. The plain truth is, everybody knows we are one vote short of passing the homeland security bill--one vote short. If we had one more vote, we could pass this bill and we could start the process of protecting America. But we do not have that vote. Whose vote is it? Well, it is any one person who is not with the President's program as he has compromised on it. Senator Miller is with it. He is a sponsor of it. He is a lead sponsor of it. The plain truth is, we are one vote short. I assure you, if I were running against anybody in America and they were opposed to the President's compromise on homeland security, I would consider it to be a legitimate issue. If that is not a legitimate issue, there is not a legitimate issue in America. The fact that we are adjourning this Congress instead of staying here today and tomorrow and from now until we get the job done is totally and absolutely irresponsible. Having said all that, let me propose some unanimous consent requests myself. First, let me take the Daschle unanimous consent and change it slightly. Let's bring the bill up right now. Let's not leave it to the majority leader as to whether it would be brought up. Let's bring it up and let's have a vote on the Gramm-Miller amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 5005, the homeland defense bill; that the motion to recommit be withdrawn, and the Nelson amendment No. 4740 to the Gramm-Miller amendment be withdrawn; that there be an hour time limitation on the Gramm-Miller amendment; and at the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the Senate vote on the Gramm-Miller amendment.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I object.