Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia once again. I mentioned, when the Senator asked a question or two, about the omission from the bill of the program that our committee created, which would have authorized a COPS-like program for firefighters, which would be critically important to local fire departments all around America, who are already spending more money to get ready to protect their people from terrorist attack. I want to go on with a few more of what I call the bad news in the substitute. The substitute also grants--it's ironic that I come to this moment now, but it grants the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security broad reorganization--I'm sure Senator Byrd will speak to this later in the day--with no need for congressional approval. The President would simply submit a reorganization plan to Congress within 60 days after enactment. No congressional approval would be required, as it would under both Gramm-Miller and our committee bill. Only notice. The substitute also contains a sweeping liability protection provision that eliminates punitive damages and provides other caps and immunities from liability for any products that the Secretary of the new Department of Homeland Security certifies as antiterrorism technologies. This provision, if construed broadly, could do serious damage to individuals' rights. The Secretary must simply designate that a new technology is antiterrorism-related, and the exemption and the protections that are provided by this section of the bill go into effect. Perhaps the most egregious flaw is the bill would cap liability at the limits of a seller's insurance, meaning people who allege they have been injured by one of these technologies certified by the Secretary can go either completely or partially uncompensated even if a seller who is liable has more than enough money to compensate them because the provision of this bill says the limits of liability are the limits of coverage of the seller's insurance. Even if, as I read this provision, the seller has assets and the plaintiff has proved that his or her injuries are the result of negligence by the seller, the liability is capped at the limit of the insurance policy. That is a significant change in tort law. At various times in this Senate, I have been quite active in advancing what is broadly called tort reform. This section some may describe as tort reform, but I think it goes way over the line in compromising the rights of individuals under our system of negligence and tort law. Finally, the bill fails to include a package of vital information technology reforms initiated by Senator Durbin, who will speak soon, and cosponsored by Senator Thompson and myself that were included in our committee-approved legislation. This amendment would dramatically improve the way data is managed in the new Department, and that will be central to the Department's effectiveness of protecting the security of the American people at home. It would also improve the way data is managed throughout all agencies related to homeland security by allowing agencies to share and integrate their data swiftly and seamlessly. By failing to tackle information technology management, the substitute misses a huge opportunity to fix one of the most frustrating bureaucratic barriers to effective homeland security, and it will be a shame if this provision, which is noncontroversial, is omitted from the substitute. Finally, I wish to say briefly, because I spoke to this yesterday when Senator McCain and I offered the amendment, I was deeply disappointed to find that the substitute bill fails to include an independent citizens commission to investigate the September 11 attacks. How can we learn from the past if we do not face up to our own failures honestly and directly and bravely? How can we reassure the American people we are taking every necessary step to protect them against terrorism if we are unwilling to scrutinize every agency in our Federal system unflinchingly? The answer, unfortunately, is we cannot. That is why the homeland security legislation our committee proposed was amended by the Senate by a resounding, overwhelming bipartisan vote of 90 to 8 to include a provision offered by Senator McCain and me and others to create a bipartisan, nonpolitical blue ribbon commission to investigate the Government's failures in all the years leading up to September 11. In fact, the earlier iteration of the so-called Gramm-Miller substitute embraced, after the Senate spoke so resoundingly, that same idea for a bipartisan commission. Yet this substitute omits that proposal. That is outrageous and unacceptable. We should not accept it, and I can tell you that the families of the victims of September 11 do not and will not accept it. Senator McCain and I said yesterday, and I repeat today, that we, and I am sure many others on both sides of the aisle, will be persistent and steadfast and continue to search for and find every possible vehicle and method we can to get this independent commission to investigate September 11 adopted. Let me now say by way of conclusion, I have tried to describe the good parts of this bill because, again, most of the proposals in the bill, the overall architecture of the new Department, and most of the specific provisions are taken from the bipartisan legislation that emerged from the Governmental Affairs Committee in the Senate, which I have been privileged to chair. In fact, in some significant ways that I have outlined, this second iteration of the Gramm-Miller substitute has been improved to take in even more parts of our initial proposal. We have all learned together how to improve this legislation. That is all to the good. I do disagree respectfully with my dear colleague from West Virginia because I believe there is an urgent necessity now to better organize our homeland defenses because the current disorganization was part of the cause of September 11. The continuing disorganization is dangerous. Yes, the various agencies are out there, but as I said at the beginning of my statement, everyone is in charge, therefore no one is in charge. We need to bring these agencies together. We need to eliminate overlap and save some money by doing that. We need to make them more efficient and, most of all, have a clear line of accountability. There remains--and this really gnaws at me, and I know many Members of the Senate--a disconnection between too much of our intelligence community apparatus and law enforcement apparatus, including State and local law enforcement, and that disconnection means we do not have in one place all the information that can telegraph to this new agency that a terrorist attack is coming and give us the time to stop it before the terrorists act. This agency will create such an intelligence division now. The urgent necessity for a new Department has to be weighed against the shortcomings and the late additions that I have described. I cannot repeat the plain facts about our persistent vulnerabilities often enough. I have said them before and I will repeat them. The writer H.G. Wells once said: Adapt or perish, now as ever, is nature's inexorable imperative. Adapt or perish, and that is our challenge and our choice today. Adapt to the new terrorist threat or grow weaker and watch some of our fellow Americans perish. Adapt to build on our strength and our ingenuity, or continue to have the American people live in fear. Adapt or have your children grow up feeling that they are at the mercy of our terrorist enemies, no matter how strong we are in conventional military power, in economic strength, in cultural strength, in values, rather than seize the moment and control our own destiny through our strength and the organization of it. A bill creating a Department of Homeland Security led by a strong and accountable Secretary will make sure that our domestic defense efforts do adapt to this new threat. It is really a source of continuing regret and frustration that the substitute comes to us now not only with compromises that have been made that are less than I would have liked-- very few of us get exactly what we would like in legislation; that is the nature of the process--but that irrelevant and very troubling additions have been made to the legislation, and that is the balance that we are going to have to strike. For my part, I have filed several amendments by the 1 o'clock deadline today to strike various parts of this substitute that I think are not only marginally relevant but, in some cases, totally irrelevant to the central task of homeland security, and not only do not add but subtract from the rights and freedom from fear of the American people. It is nonetheless urgent to go forward and act on this measure. I, for one, do intend to vote for cloture to bring this debate to a conclusion, but I have attempted to fashion the amendments I have filed in a way that cloture will not prevent me from obtaining a vote in my attempt to strike some of the objectionable and unnecessary provisions of this substitute proposal. ``Adapt or perish, now as ever, is nature's inexorable imperative,'' those words of H.G. Wells speak to each one of us as we balance the good and bad in this substitute and decide how to vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will yield for a question from the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Through the Chair, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. The House, last night, adopted a proposal which I gather is essentially the same, perhaps totally the same, as this substitute which was offered yesterday by Senators Thompson, Gramm, and Miller.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator. As I said at the outset of the remarks I am giving here, there is a lot that is in this substitute that has, in fact, been taken from our committee bill. But as I am enumerating now, there is a lot also that has been added, and some of it really at the last moment. Some of it is compromise legislation, for instance, on the question of Federal worker rights, which we have been debating here for several weeks now. But some of it, such as the provision on child vaccine and the liability of pharmaceutical companies in cases of injury from that vaccine, we have never seen in any of the many forms of homeland security legislation that have been introduced or discussed, and not only in the Senate but I believe in the House as well.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I remember those days fondly.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I will speak on the substitute on homeland security introduced yesterday by Senator Thompson on behalf of Senators Gramm and Miller. My feelings about this substitute, to put it as directly as I can, are mixed. The substitute would create a single strong Department of Homeland Security under the leadership of an accountable Secretary, which many Members have supported, actually, for more than a year now in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the dangerous vulnerabilities in our federal homeland security system that those attacks revealed. The substitute is also problematic in many ways. I categorize them in four chunks. First, this substitute contains several provisions that are just ill- conceived, missed opportunities to close vulnerabilities in our security or that otherwise make the wrong choice. Second, the bill contains provisions that are unrelated to homeland security legislation. Apparently, as often happens in Congress, some of our colleagues have decided to put the provisions on what they assumed was the last bus out of town during this session rather than waiting for the right ride. Third, the bill contains provisions that do seem, as we approach December, to be gift wrapped by lobbyists to satisfy some special interests, not carefully considered to improve the security of the American people. Fourth, a number of provisions in the bill are 11th hour additions, new to everyone in the Senate, not previously included either in the legislation that came from our Governmental Affairs Committee or in the so-called Graham-Miller substitute, at least in its previous iterations. This makes it difficult to know whether these provisions are good or bad. It is in that sense that these last-minute conditions on a critically important bill are not up to the standards the Senate should follow, and are not of the urgent necessity that cries out for this bill, which is to protect the homeland security of the American people. There are many good things to say about the substitute in a number of areas. The bill has made real progress from earlier proposals, both from the President and from our Republican colleagues. I am grateful, once again, as in the previous Gramm-Miller substitute, the overall architecture and composition of the proposed Department of Homeland Security is quite similar to what we conceived in the legislation approved by the Governmental Affairs Committee, first on a partisan vote in May and then unfortunately in a bipartisan vote in July of this year. This bill, the substitute, would create a new Department with major provisions responsible for border and transportation security, intelligence, and critical infrastructure protection, emergency preparedness and response, science and technology, and immigration services. This bill is nearly identical to the bill approved by the Governmental Affairs Committee in deciding which domestic defense- related agencies and offices should be transferred and how they should be organized. In fact, when we say, as has been said so often in this debate in this Chamber, that there is agreement on 90 to 95 percent of what we should be doing here with regard to homeland security, that is what we mean. We mean we agree on the big picture, if I may put it that way. That is a big deal. We recognize that today's terrible vulnerabilities are there and we agree not only on the need for a comprehensive reorganization to close those vulnerabilities but almost all of the components that have reorganization. Today, homeland security is institutionally homeless--everyone is in charge and therefore no one is in charge. Under this substitute, as under our committee-approved legislation, that will no longer be the case. Under this bill, as under our bill, for the first time we would bolster emergency preparedness and response efforts to ensure that all areas and levels of government are working together to anticipate and prepare for the worst. Today, the fact is that coordination of our homeland security agencies is the exception, not the rule. That is unacceptable. Under this bill, as under our bill, for the first time we will have a single focal point for all of the intelligence available to our Government so it can be properly fused and analyzed, and so that we will enhance our ability to deter, prevent, and respond to terrorist attacks. This was clearly one of the most glaring weaknesses of our Government leading up to September 11, 2001, as the excellent work done by the Joint Intelligence Committee investigations has made clear. Under this bill, again as under our committee bill, for the first time we would build strong bonds between Federal, State, and local governments to target terrorism. State and local officials are on the front lines of the fight against terrorism, as we learned so clearly and painfully in the death tallies of the September 11 heroes. Today, local communities are waiting for better training, for new tools, and for coordinated prevention and protection strategy. And this proposal, as under our committee bill, would accomplish that. Under this bill also, as under our committee bill, for the first time we would bring key border and national entry agencies together to ensure that dangerous people and dangerous goods are kept out of our country without restricting the flow of legal immigration and commerce that clearly nourishes our Nation. Today, threats to America may be slipping through the cracks because of our disorganization, and that is indefensible. Under this bill, as under our bill, for the first time we would promote significant new research and technology development opportunities and homeland defense. The war against terrorism has no traditional battlefield. One of the untraditional battlefields where we must fight to emerge victorious is the laboratory. Today these efforts are dispersed and often blurred. That is unwise. We cannot tolerate this any longer. Under this bill, as under our bill, for the first time we would facilitate close and comprehensive coordination between the public and private sectors to protect critical infrastructure. Fully 85 percent of our critical infrastructure is owned and operated by the private sector. We are talking here about electric grids, transportation, food distribution systems, cyber-systems, and the like. We have to close vulnerabilities in those systems before terrorists strike them. To do so, we have to be working with the private sector. In all of these areas, this piece of legislation, the substitute, will usher in, I am confident, a much more secure nation. Beyond its overall structure, I am also pleased the substitute has moved toward our committee-approved bill in a number of specific areas, namely intelligence, science, and technology, workforce improvement, and appropriations. I want to discuss these each briefly now. First, intelligence. The President's initial proposal had a very limited conception of the intelligence powers and responsibilities of the new Department. The intelligence provisions in this bill borrowed heavily from our legislation, and as a result will give our Government a much better opportunity to avoid repeating the disastrous disconnects that prevented us from connecting those dots before September 11. First, the bill would, like our committee legislation, make it clear that the purpose of the new Department's information analysis function includes fusing, analyzing, and disseminating intelligence to deter, prevent, preempt or respond to all terrorist threats against the United States. That is a central change from the President's initial, more limited conception of an intelligence division designed primarily to protect our critical infrastructure. We argued that was inadequate because--well, the World Trade Center itself, and the Pentagon, are not parts of our traditional critical infrastructure, nor are shopping malls and places of public gathering which terrorists unfortunately strike. This substitute also made progress in priority setting. It gives the Under Secretary the authority to work with the Director of Central Intelligence and other agencies to establish intelligence collection priorities and insures that the Department of Homeland Security will be at the table with the rest of the intelligence community when intelligence requirements and priorities are established. Finally on this point, the bill does seem to have moved closer to the committee bill on the crucial issue of access to information by giving the new Department access to information except in cases where the President objects. However, some differences do remain on intelligence. Rather than creating separate Senate-confirmed Under Secretary positions to oversee intelligence analysis and infrastructure protection, the substitute creates Assistant Secretaries within the same division of the new Department. In my view, intelligence and infrastructure protection should each be led by a separate Senate-confirmed Under Secretary, each of whom can bring the necessary clout, attention, resources, and attention to those complex and different challenges. The access to information provisions--Senator Specter and I agree, and he may also have an amendment on them--also could be enhanced. On the whole, however, this critical function of the Department, intelligence, has been greatly improved in this substitute. The Department created by this bill will systematically organize, scrutinize, and bring together all relevant data in order to much better protect the American people from terrorism. Science and technology next. So, too, has this substitute moved toward our legislation on science and technology. Our committee worked very hard to give this new Department the creative abilities it needs to develop and deploy a full range of technologies to detect and defeat danger on our home soil. In World War II, of course, we had the Manhattan Project, scientists who came together to design revolutionary weaponry which was ultimately decisive in that war. In the war against terrorism here at home, we need revolutionary defense technologies, machines that can scan for dangerous materials-- biometric identification systems, information analysis software, vaccines and antidotes to deadly pathogens--poisons. The list goes on and on, most of it probably at this moment unimaginable in detail but critically important to our future security. I am very gratified to see the substitute before us provides for a Directorate of Science and Technology headed by a Senate-confirmed Under Secretary, a Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency that is modeled after DARPA in the Department of Defense, federally funded research and development centers to provide analytical support to the Department, and a mechanism for allowing the Department to access any of the Department of Energy laboratories and sites. All of these were not included in the President's original homeland security proposal. I am grateful to the authors of the substitute for including them now. There are some other points of progress in the bill I think are worth noting. First, thanks I gather in large measure to the effective advocacy by the senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, and unlike the President's original proposal, this substitute has wisely preserved congressional accountability over spending by the new Department--after all, that is our constitutional role--and in doing so has rejected the administration's call for expansive authority to shift money among accounts--appropriated money, the public's money--without approval by Congress. Second, this bill has made significant strides in safeguarding the Department's integrity, cost-effectiveness, and respect for individual rights. The original Gramm-Miller substitute, offered on behalf of the administration, would have created a department without a civil rights officer or privacy officer, and with an inspector general over whom the Department's Secretary would have had unprecedented authority, thereby making it possible that the inspector general's independence would have been compromised. In this new substitute now pending, there is once again a civil rights officer in the Department, there is a privacy officer, and the Secretary's authority over the inspector general has been substantially checked. I wish the improvements had gone further. Our committee-endorsed bill, for instance, would have given the civil rights officer and the inspector general more authority than the substitute does and, therefore, help assure a new Department of Homeland Security that would more likely adhere to the highest standards of values and conduct. But I am grateful for what has changed in this substitute. Finally, I am pleased that the substitute amendment has incorporated the entire Federal workforce improvement bipartisan proposal developed by Senators Akaka and Voinovich, both distinguished members of our Governmental Affairs Committee. That reform package will help this Department and all other Federal Departments attract, retain, and reward the best talent with the help of new personnel management tools and management flexibility given to the new Secretary. Mr. President, unfortunately, as I said at the beginning, there is some bad news. That was the good news in the substitute. There is some bad news as well. While this bill, as I have just indicated, does incorporate, particularly in the Akaka-Voinovich agreement, some substantial human capital reforms for the Federal workforce, it unfortunately also takes a step backward in other related areas. On the personnel issues--the Federal workforce issues that became such an unfortunate wedge between us here in this Chamber for so long--I must say I am not happy with the outcome. I don't want to rehash the arguments for and against keeping civil service protections in place and giving union representative employees basic protection against having their rights arbitrarily terminated. But let me just say this. What motivated us all along was a desire to ensure this new Department would from day one have not only the best leadership, the most sensible organization, and the resources necessary to do the big job we are giving it, but that it would also have the highest quality and best motivated workforce it could possibly have; that we would not begin the history of this new Department with expressions of suspicion about the commitment--even perhaps the patriotism--of these Federal employees, but that we would engage them together as part of a team, as respected members of the team, and indeed as those members of the team who would be doing the critical work every hour of every day to protect the security of the American people at home. We often in our debate referred to the events of September 11 and the fact that those firefighters and police officers who we honored for their heroism, who we mourned for the ultimate sacrifice that they gave, were all members of unions, were all governed by civil service rules. But in the hour of crisis, in the hour of public need, not a single one of them but for a second thought about their union rights, or their collective bargaining agreement, or their civil service agreement. They rushed to the duty that they had, and accepted it as public employees. At one point a few months ago, a group of us met with a battalion chief from the New York City Fire Department. He told us that on that day, September 11, he was off duty with a group of friends who were off duty. When they heard the planes had hit the World Trade Center, they just rushed to the scene. He talked about terrible frustration and heartbreak because some of his colleagues, when they got to the scene, were told they could not go into the building to try to rescue those who were there. That is what public service is about. Civil service protections and collective bargaining rights never come between public employees and their obligation or responsibility to do duty. It was shown over and over again by the Federal employees in the departments and agencies that will be consolidated into this new Department. On this front, this substitute continues to be a disappointment to me. The bill fails to correct major problems in the previous Gramm- Miller substitute, and, as a result, I fear, invites politicization, arbitrary treatment, and other personnel abuses in the Federal Government in a way that may damage the merit-based workplace Federal employees and the American people--we the American people--who these Federal employees serve and in this new Department must protect have come to depend upon. I hope, of course, that what many fear does not occur and that if, or probably when, this substitute passes, this and future administrations will not overstep their bounds, will not unfairly use the unprecedented authority they are given in parts of this legislation, and will not undermine thereby the effectiveness of the new Department. I must say I still personally fail to understand why any President would need to remove collective bargaining rights from unionized employees who have a long and proud history of helping to protect the homeland, as the 45,000-some employees who will be unionized of the 170,000, who will be moved to this Department, and who will continue to do exactly the same work they have done for decades. While previous Presidents have had the same authority and have not exercised it to remove their collective bargaining rights, they will continue to do that work in this new Department. If and when this President or any future Presidents should decide to eliminate collective bargaining within a unit of the Department--as they will have the legal power to do if this substitute passes unilaterally--I am confident the Congress will not just sit back and watch. We will expect the President to take such a step only if it is truly essential to national security and not merely a management convenience or an ideological compulsion. We will expect the Department's leadership will have first made good-faith efforts to work cooperatively with their employees who are union members, determining that union representation is in fact incompatible with national security. We will expect the explanation the President provides to Congress, required under this substitute, to be thorough. The administration for its part has said, particularly in recent days, it is not out to break Federal employee unions, but only to retain an extraordinary authority that has been exercised only a handful of times over the last four decades. We in Congress and our successors and I believe the American people will hold both this President and his successors to that promise. When it comes to the creation of a modified personnel management system, we expect the employees in the new Department will be hired, promoted, disciplined, and fired based only on merit. We expect that if and when existing civil service rights and protections are altered or removed, the administration can demonstrate a clear need for doing so in the context of the homeland security mission of the Department. We expect fair and independent procedures will be maintained for all employees with grievances, especially those who allege abuse or corruption within the Department--whistleblowers. We expect changes to the system will be carefully crafted through negotiation and collaboration with employees and their representatives at all levels, from the rank and file to top echelons of management. And if a disagreement arises, or an agreement is not possible to obtain, the required 30 days of mediation and negotiation between the administration and the unions will be substantial and in good faith, not cosmetic. The administration has pledged not to undermine the integrity of a merit-based public-sector workplace. Here again, the American people and we in Congress will be watching, and watching carefully. Let me discuss a few other concerns that I have about the substitute. On immigration, this bill takes what, in my view, is a step backward from our committee-approved legislation by splitting the Immigration and Naturalization Service programs between the Border Directorate, where all immigration enforcement will be housed, and a new Bureau for Citizenship and Immigration Services, which will handle immigration services. I am concerned that this configuration may diffuse responsibility for immigration policy and coordination among a large number of officials. And it is contrary to the earlier bipartisan Kennedy-Brownback immigration legislation. I am also troubled that the bill weakens provisions we had carefully developed to ensure that the independence of immigration courts would be preserved and that vulnerable child aliens would not be lost in the shuffle to the new Department. I regret that the bill would shield private-sector information that is voluntarily submitted to the new Department from the Freedom of Information Act from being used in civil litigation and even from release by State and local governments under their own sunshine laws. That is a major retreat from the carefully crafted bipartisan Bennett- Levin-Leahy compromise that was included in our committee bill and in the Gramm-Miller substitute in its original form, and is of particular concern to community groups, workers, environmental advocates, and watchdogs who depend on access to this information to help them reduce environmental health and safety risks to themselves, their families, and the public. In addition, out of the blue, if I may phrase it that way, this substitute includes a provision that had not been seen in any previous proposals regarding homeland security, and that would take complaints about vaccine additives out of the courts and require them to be made through the Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. That would affect potential claims involving the mercury-based preservative thimerosal. Because there are a number of class action lawsuits pending on this issue, this is a highly controversial and complicated issue, one that the relevant committee of the Senate, which has been working on it, the HELP Committee, has not been able to come to a consensus on after several months of deliberation. So why is this provision being rushed through now in the context of homeland security legislation in a way that makes it very hard for us to reach a proper conclusion, though we have very significant fears that rights of injured parties are being severely limited? The bill also omits a vital provision in our bill that would have provided $1 billion for each of the fiscal years 2003 and 2004 to local governments to hire firefighters. This provision, sponsored in our committee, and cosponsored--again, bipartisan--by Senators Carnahan and Collins, would create what is effectively a firefighter's version of the immensely successful and productive and valued COPS Program that we created in the 1990s. I believe it started in 1994 for police officers locally. After September 11, the firefighters are people we depend on, particularly in an emergency. The fire departments have taken on new responsibilities throughout the country post September 11 and are doing more hiring, so we need to help them pay for their new personnel. We need to help them train and equip those personnel. Unfortunately, that pathbreaking, productive, progressive provision has been taken out of the substitute.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. It is a fair question. I would like to answer it by continuing to outline some of the shortcomings in the substitute before us, and then offering a conclusion, and then I will yield to the Senator from Illinois, who has been waiting to be recognized. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his comments and his recollection of the history here.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I am proud with my Senate colleagues, particularly Senators Kennedy, Gregg, and Hollings, in expressing support for this historic legislation, which will help ensure that our country continues to be a leader in scientific and technological innovation. I also want to extend my appreciation to Chairman Boehlert of the House Science Committee for his leadership in moving this strongly bipartisan legislation. The reality is that technological and scientific innovation is now widely understood to be the major driver of economic growth, not to mention a critical factor in our military superiority. Education is essential to ensuring that the American workforce possesses the skills necessary to meet these innovation needs. The provisions included in this legislation will help give universities and colleges in Connecticut and nationwide the tools they need to boost our domestic pool of brainpower--the next generation of people who will incubate and implement the next generation of ideas to expand our economy. I am extremely pleased that the bill passed today includes all of the key elements of the Technology Talent Act of 2001 S. 1549, legislation that I and my colleagues, most notably Senators Mikulski, Bond, Frist and Domenici, first proposed a year ago today. The Technology Talent Act of 2001, ``Tech Talent Act'', sought to stimulate economic growth by boosting the number of math, science, technology and engineering graduates from U.S. institutions of higher learning. House Science Committee Chairman Boehlert introduced similar legislation in the House , H.R. 3130, on October 16, 2001. In keeping with the Tech Talent Act, the National Science Foundation Act of 2002 ``NSF Authorization Act approved today establishes a framework for a multi-year competitive grant program that would award performance-based grants to institutions of higher learning to increase the number of math, science, technology and engineering graduates. The legislation will formally authorize an existing program at NSF that was inspired by and modeled after Tech Talent Act--the Science, Mathematics, Engineering,and Technology talent Expansion Program, STEP. STEP, has already received Federal appropriations for fiscal year 2002 and elicited more than 170 applications from interested colleges and universities, of which 16 were awarded grants. I am pleased that Naugatuck Valley Community College in my home state was selected to be one of the first grantees under the program and have every confidence that it will lead the Nation in developing creative and effective ways to build a 21st century workforce. The provisions in the NSP Authorization Act before us today achieves the same goals as were proposed in my Tech Talent Act. The following analysis describes the growing talent gap that threatens America's leadership in science and technology and clarifies the goals, concepts, and themes underpinning both my original legislation and the STEP, or Tech Talent, provisions of the NSF Authorization Act. America's technological prowess is unequaled in the world today-- which is why, despite our economic slowdown and the financial burdens of prosecuting the war against terror and ensuring our collective defense, we still have the strongest, most vibrant economy on the planet. However, our long-term competitive standing and economic security could well be at risk if we do not address a troubling trend line in our workforce, the mismatch between the demand and supply of workers with science and engineering training. Studies show that the number of jobs requiring significant technical skills is projected to grow by more than 50 percent in the United States over the next ten years. But outside of the life sciences, the number of degrees awarded in science and engineering has been flat or declining. This has helped fuel a well-chronicled shortage of qualified New Economy workers. We have tried to temporarily plug this human capital hole with a stopgap of foreign workers. Unfortunately, there is a broad consensus among high-tech leaders and policymakers that it would be a serious mistake to prolong this dependence and essentially render our GDP contingent on the supply of H-1 B visa holders. That may sound like a bit of an overstatement to some. But the reality is that technological innovation has been a key enabler of our economic and military dominance over the last half century. It is widely acknowledged, moreover, that we cannot continue to expand our economy in the future if we don't take steps now to expand our domestic pool of human intellectual capital. Now, most answers to serious economic challenges flow from the private sector, which is where growth must occur. But there are things that the Federal Government can do to help, particularly when it comes to educating and training our workforce. We can provide leadership, focus, and not least of all resources, and that was the purpose of the Tech Talent Act as introduced, and STEP as is included in this NSF legislation. Specifically, the Tech Talent program aims to fix a critical link in this ``tech talent'' gap--undergraduate education in science, math, engineering, and technology. As established in our bill, it would provide competitive grants to institutions of higher learning, from universities to community colleges, to encourage them to find creative methods for increasing the number of graduates in these disciplines. This is not another scholarship program, but a targeted, results- driven initiative that goes straight to the gatekeepers. We're not asking them to change their admissions policies, but, in effect, to design new missions. Come up with effective ideas, and we will provide the dollars to make them work. For example, institutions could propose to add or strengthen the interdisciplinary components of undergraduate science education. Or they could establish targeted support programs for women and minorities, who are 54 percent of our total workforce, but only 22 percent of scientists and engineers, to increase enrollment and graduation numbers in these fields. Or they could partner with local technology companies to provide summer industry internships for ongoing research experience. This initiative was conceived with strong bipartisan, bicameral support. The Tech Talent Act, as noted, was introduced last year by Senators Mikulski, Bond, Frist, Domenici, and myself; the House companion bill, H.R. 3130, was introduced by House Science Committee Chairman Boehlert and Representative Larson. By the end of the year, Congress had agreed to appropriate $5 million for this fiscal year to jumpstart the program in the form of NSF's STEP, even though our authorizing legislation had not yet been passed. Most recently, the Senate VA-HUD Committee Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 included $20 million for the program. The program also has extremely broad support outside the Congress. The Administration has supported Tech Talent as a priority, including funding for it in its budget request for FY 2003. In addition, the response from leaders in industry, academia, and educational communities, also has been tremendous, we have received letters of support from TechNet, Semiconductor Industry Association, National Alliance of Business, K-12 Science, Mathematics, Engineering & Technology Coalition, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Texas Instruments, and the American Society for Engineering Education, to name but a few. Even more encouraging are the preliminary data obtained from NSF's STEP. NSF received 177 applications requesting a total of $59.7 million in aid, clear evidence of the vast interest in, and need for, the Tech Talent program among undergraduate institutions seeking to implement reforms in science and math education. In its first year, the program has awarded 16 grants to colleges and universities. The NSF Authorization Act passed today will do much to enhance the efforts already underway at NSF in this area and to permanently establish ``Tech Talent'' as a national priority. I want to make clear the intent of a few provisions in this legislation as their implementation will be critical to the success of the program. The intent of H.R. 4664, expressed in section (8)(a)(7)(A), is to prioritize funding for programs in fields of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology that have witnessed a period of stagnant of declining enrollment and degree conferrals, especially where such declines have resulted, or are likely to result, in adverse social, economic, technological, or military costs. It deserves clarification that a declining trend can be indicated not only through an absolute decrease in the number of students enrolling or graduating in a particular field, but through a relative decrease in the proportion that students of a particular field constitute relative to the total number of students enrolled or graduating across all fields. For example, statistics from the National Science Foundation, NSF, demonstrate that between 1985 and 2000, the number of bachelor's degrees awarded declined from 77,572 to 59,536 in engineering, and from 16,270 to 14,580 in the physical sciences. Furthermore, the NSF predicts that the number of jobs requiring skills and backgrounds in information technology will vastly outstrip the number of people capable of filling such positions over the next decade. The negative consequences of such trends with respect to economic growth, technological innovation, and gainful employment have been widely documented and should represent near to medium-term priorities for Tech talent funding. In emphasizing the need to remediate stagnant or declining trends, we recognize and appreciate previous criticisms regarding the difficulty of accurately modeling future employment scenarios and of forecasting areas of societal need. Nevertheless, we believe that investments must bear a relationship to desired outcomes if limited funds are to be allocated intelligently. The NSF is therefore expected to undertake efforts to the best extent it can to identify and account for broader social considerations, including generally anticipated industry requirements or imbalances between the number of students graduating across different fields, in determining fields appropriate for prioritization. To this end, the NSF may require applicants to specify the specific societal needs being addressed by their proposals and to articulate how such proposals would further the remediation of targeted needs. The fundamental goal of the Technology Talent Act as introduced was to increase the number of graduates with expertise in math, science, technology and engineering to meet the critical needs of our U.S. businesses, industries, research community and military. As such, the intention of sections (8)(a)(7)(B) and (8)(a)(7)(D)(i) of H.R. 4664 is to require applicants to clearly establish measurable targets to both increase the number of students studying toward degrees in science, mathematics, technology and engineering, and to increase the number of students who have completed degrees, concentrations, or certificates in these fields. Therefore, it is intended that applicants that fail to establish goals for both enrollment and completion shall be considered inadequate. Likewise under section (8)(a)(7)(D)(ii), it is intended that the Director shall terminate funding in the case of a grantee that has failed to make substantial progress toward meeting the targets established in section (8)(a)(7)(D)(i) for increasing the number of students completing degrees, concentrations or certificates in science, mathematics, technology and engineering. However, I would encourage the Director to work with grantees and provide technical assistance to help ensure that grantees make substantial progress during the first three years of the grant toward meeting the targets established in (8)(a)(7)(D)(i) and to achieve such targets by the end of the grant period. I further believe that it is inherent in this legislation that grantees that successfully meet their targets established in (8)(a)(7)(D)(i) shall be eligible to compete for subsequent grants. I believe that this NSF bill provides a real boost to efforts that are being undertaken in parts of the country to address our technical workforce challenge. As such, it is the intention that innovative consortias between institutions of higher education and non-profits, industry or state or local governments are eligible to compete for grants under the STEP program per section (8)(a)(7)(F). In particular, I believe that legislation under (8)(a)(7)(F)(iii) allows for non- profits established on behalf of such high-quality and proven consortias to apply directly for grants. For example, the State of Texas passed legislation last year that created a consortium--the Texas Engineering and Technical Consortium, TETC, among private industry and 32 colleges and universities to increase the number of students graduating from Texas schools with degrees in electrical engineering and computer science. Grants are awarded to universities and colleges to support curriculum changes, bridge programs, and various forms of student and faculty support to help increase the retention rate of students pursuing degrees in these areas and to attract and retain more underrepresented groups. This collaborative effort has received funding from Advance Micro Devices, Texas Instruments, Hewlett Packard, Motorola, Intel, Applied Materials and Sabre, with in-kind support from AeA and TechNet. The state matches private and other contributions up to $5 million per year. In April, grants worth $5.3 million were awarded to fund 33 projects as 23 institutions. The appeal of this program is that industry, academia and the state are working cooperatively and collaboratively to address a pressing workforce need, rather than on a school-by-school or company-by-company basis. While it is still too early to determine the success of these projects, which were funded at 64 percent of the potential grant amount, the institutions are projecting a 13 percent increase in total student numbers in these programs for fall 2003. If fully funded, that increase could go as high as 23 percent. This is just the type of innovation that the Tech Talent is meant to encourage. Finally, the real success the version of the ``Tech Talent'' program encompassed in this legislation will be based on the successful replication and expansion of model programs supported through this grant program at all of our higher education institutions. Therefore, I believe it is critical that the Director follow the intent of the original language as introduced in S. 1549, section (5)(a), and H.R. 3130, section (4)(d), and select an independent evaluative organization to develop metrics for measuring the impact of the program, particularly on the number of students enrolled, academic performance of students, persistence to degree completion, and placement in post-graduate education or career pathways, and to identify the program approaches assisted under this program that are the most effective in increasing the number of students obtaining degrees in science, mathematics, technology and engineering. In addition, both S. 1549 and H.R. 3130 intend for the Director to regularly disseminate information on the activities conducted by grantees and the results of programs assisted under this grant program, including best practices, to participating institutions of higher education and other interested institutions of higher education. Similarly, I believe it is imperative to share the findings of programs assisted under STEP grants with Congress through interim and final reports so that we may make better policy decisions to enhance our nation's standing as a scientific and technological leader. We all realize that solving the undergraduate problem is not going to single handedly close our talent gap. At the same time, we should also realize that the talent gap cannot be closed without first solving the problem at the undergraduate level. Therefore, I am pleased by the Senate's unanimous support today for the NSF Authorization Act of 2002, and the STEP, or Tech Talent, provisions encompassed therein. In doing so, we will be helping to ensure that the young minds of today will be capable of mastering and fueling the high-tech economies of tomorrow.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I support the request of the Senator from Pennsylvania for unanimous consent. I have been his cosponsor and coworker in this cause for many a year now. This is part of an attempt to find a constitutionally appropriate way to engage. The initial attempt was to engage faith-based groups in making this a better society, using the particular skills they have, and sense of mission that faith-based groups have, to help us deal with some of society's social problems. Of course, there are thousands of faith-based groups that are doing that today with regard to fundamental human needs such as hunger and homelessness, and going beyond that, to violence, family dysfunction, drug abuse, substance abuse, and a host of other problems. This was an attempt to see if we could find a constitutionally appropriate way to have the Government help these groups do that. Along the way many concerns were raised. The bill was passed in the House, so-called charitable choice, building, in fact, on a charitable choice provision that was in the welfare reform bill of 1996 and signed by President Clinton. A similar provision was adopted in three other social service programs, but when it came to introducing this legislation last year--which President Bush had coordinated and initiated--there was some opposition and controversy around it. I must say here, and perhaps it is timely and appropriate to say it, as the pending legislation before the Senate is the homeland security legislation, where this Senator has said several times I have felt the administration, on a particular point, has been inflexible or--in any case, in this measure, with regard to faith-based institutions, the administration has in fact been quite flexible. We have now come together on a proposal that is not really any longer strictly a faith- based initiative. It is a charity initiative. We have eliminated all of the controversial sections that were in the House-passed legislation, passed earlier in the 107th session. We have it honed down now to very significant tax incentives for charitable giving, for people to give to charities, faith-based and otherwise, at a time when those charities' income is falling because of the economy and other demands. Yet the needs, if anything, as the economy is stagnating, are even greater. As to the $1.2 billion to social services block grants, if there was nothing else in this bill, I would say it was worth it because these are critically important, humane programs that are carried out. Again, they don't just go to faith-based groups. They go to all--they go mostly to nonfaith-based groups. And then technical assistance for charities to be able to qualify for public assistance, the Individual Development Accounts, which were a wonderful way--experimented with in several places around the country--to help poor people build savings that are matched by financial institutions, to get some wealth and work their way up into the middle class. I know there remain some concerns about the bill. But they are not about the language of the bill, which I believe is noncontroversial at this point. They are about trying, around this bill, to change some language that is in the statute now--particular language in title VII of the Civil Rights Act that allows faith-based groups to hire people only of the faith of the group. That is an issue on which we can all agree or disagree. But I plead with my colleagues, it is an issue for another day. The fact is, under the unanimous consent proposal that the Senator from Pennsylvania has made, our colleagues who are concerned about that issue, though it is not specifically within the parameters of this proposal, will have the opportunity to introduce amendments to alter it. I think this is a very reasonable proposal which is all good and will help charitable groups of all kinds help us make this a better country. Therefore, I appeal to my colleagues to allow this unanimous consent to be adopted so that, before we leave, we can in a sense give a gift, as we approach the holiday season, to those who are most in need in our society and particularly directly to those charitable groups where the focus is on helping those most in need. I hope we can agree on this unanimous consent proposal. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I congratulate our new colleague from Minnesota, not only for the nobility of the purpose for which this legislation is dedicated, to honor the memory of our dear friends Paul and Sheila Wellstone, but for the fact he achieved the passage of a measure so early in his time here as a Member of the Senate. I congratulate him for his purpose and for his success.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator from Arizona again is correct. There have been some commissions created by other bodies. But the ones in the most important cases have been created by Congress. On the first point, which is a powerful point, it is the clear desire of the families of the victims of September 11 that this commission be created by Congress. We ought to create it. This was a national catastrophe. As we create a Department of Homeland Security to protect the American people from that ever happening again, we ought to, as the representatives of all the people of this country, all of them in this terrible new era we have entered, potentially victims of terrorism--we, as their representatives, ought to say loudly and together, hopefully together with the administration, we can never know too much about how September 11 happened. We do not know enough now how September 11 happened. The one best way to know as much as we can of the truth about September 11 is to create a strong, nonpolitical commission with full resources and powers of subpoena to get to the truth. The day for this commission will come. The arguments for it are irresistible. Let us hope that day is sooner than later. I thank my friend from Arizona for his persistence and advocacy. Also, it is an honor to work with him. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with a lot of other Members, of both parties, of this body to get this commission created. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator from Arizona is quite right. He remembers the numbers exactly. It was a 90-to-8 vote--very strong bipartisan support for this idea. That support ought not be frustrated. I have seen public opinion surveys that say it represents the desire and opinion, quite naturally, not just of the families of September 11 victims but of the American people. So while I join my friend from Arizona in expressing my gratitude that the White House has again today restarted negotiations to try to reach an agreement, I must say leaving this proposal for a commission out of this substitute that is now put in to create a Department of Homeland Security is inexplicable. I hope we can explain it by either putting it back in or coming to an agreement with the White House. It is that critical.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield to my friend.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my dear friend from Arizona for his strong statement, for joining me in introducing this amendment, and for his characteristic steadfastness in pursuit of an important cause regardless of the opposition and where it comes from. He and I introduced legislation last December. We are approaching a year ago. It was a few months after the tragic attacks of September 11. We felt there should be an independent citizen commission, nonpartisan, with full powers of subpoena and adequate resources to investigate how could September 11 have happened, because clearly the fact it did happen said we were not adequately protecting the American people. We were insistent that this kind of investigation occur so we could learn how to prevent it from ever happening again. There have been roadblocks along the way, but we have continued to state, and we state again, we are not going to give up this fight until such an independent commission is created because we cannot rest until the truth and the whole truth, so help us God, as best as anyone is able to find it, is determined about September 11. Because without that unlimited, unvarnished, uninhibited truth, we are not going to be able to inform this new Department of Homeland Security adequately. This measure of ours passed the Senate earlier this year when we were considering the Homeland Security measure. It passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. In fact, the so-called Gramm-Miller substitute incorporated this provision, which I was very grateful to Senator Gramm and Senator Miller for doing, and Senator McCain was a great advocate for that cause. In the substitute introduced by Senator Thompson, in coordination with the White House and the House, the commission proposal is not in it, and that is not acceptable. Senator McCain has said happily we continue to negotiate with the White House up until this moment, hopeful that an agreement can be secured that will create the aggressive, independent, nonpolitical commission this tragedy requires. But if it is not, and we have not reached an agreement yet, we are going to do everything we can to reinsert this commission into this Homeland Security bill where it belongs. I think I can say for my friend from Arizona and myself if for some reason that does not work, we are going to keep introducing it wherever and whenever we think we can get a vote that will make it law. We owe this to the families of the September 11 victims. I have met with them, as Senator McCain has, several times. Their desire for this commission is in some ways the strongest and most compelling argument anyone can make on its behalf, because they asked us and they asked America, having lost loved ones, how could September 11 have happened? We owe them an answer to that question, and we have not given it to them yet. As Senator McCain said, the work by the Joint Intelligence Committee has revealed information, media investigations have revealed information, that only increases our understanding of how much more we need to know. The Senate coleaders of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Graham and Senator Shelby, are now strong supporters of this commission idea. Going back to the families of the September 11 victims, I do want to say the persistent advocacy of these families, led by Steve Push, Kristen Breitweiser, Mary Fetchet, Beverly Eckert, and so many others, despite their great personal loss, has inspired not only my deep admiration but our continuing commitment to fight for this commission until it comes to fruition. We are not interested in pointing fingers. This is all about our common security, and improving it is our common responsibility. I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this amendment to the Homeland Security bill and restoring this provision to create an independent commission on September 11.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, is the Senate in morning business?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. We pushed repeatedly for a vote on a very reasonable bipartisan proposal crafted by Senators Breaux, Nelson, and Chafee, to break the unnecessary logjam over the rights of Federal workers. But that was not to be had. Our colleagues on the other side did not yield. Five times they refused to allow a vote on their own bill, even though Democrats had time and again given ground and simply wanted a vote on the compromise amendment. As will be remembered, mostly because of Senator Daschle's totally justified expression of anger on this floor, the Bush administration even began to question the patriotism of Democratic Senators rather than joining us on this good-faith area of disagreement to try to come to an agreement. In a new low in the tawdry business of political campaign advertising, two of our colleagues, Senator Cleland and Senator Carnahan, were subjected to ads that took votes they cast out of context on homeland security and questioned their patriotism. That was outrageous and unacceptable. The fact is that these two Senators, Carnahan and Cleland, had been early supporters of a Department of Homeland Security. So what started out as a nonpartisan effort to protect America's national security, unfortunately, became a very partisan effort to decide elections. Now the campaign is over. It is time to turn the page once again. Benjamin Franklin said, you may delay, but time will not. I say this afternoon we may delay, but the terrorists will not. Senators Hart and Rudman issued another report within the last week or two and they have predicted another terrorist attack: The next attack will result in even greater casualties and widespread disruption to American lives and the American economy. The need for immediate action is made more imminent by the prospects of the United States going to war with Iraq and the possibility that Saddam Hussein might threaten the use of weapons of mass destruction in America. Our vulnerabilities remain painfully serious, our disorganization in terms of our national apparatus to combat terrorism and protect national security, homeland security, dangerously disorganized. That is why it is so critical to pass a bill creating a Department of Homeland Security, led by a strong and accountable Secretary. That will start to close our vulnerabilities and improve our homeland defenses. Safety in this new age is a civil right. When Americans live in fear, their rights are compromised. By invoking cloture and moving toward a resolution on a Department of Homeland Security today, we will be saying loudly and clearly that we as a Nation do not succumb to fear. We will face what threatens us with strength. We will not be shaken by the voice that once again has threatened us on audiotape because we will secure our own future by working together in Congress to better organize our government and thereby to secure more control of our own destiny. Fear, uncertainty, and delay will be overcome by strength, unity, and American ingenuity. We will protect our friends, our family, and our children against the worst designs of our terrorist enemies by drawing on the best in each of us and, hopefully, in the days ahead we will do it together. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on this vital legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the motion for cloture that will be voted on in about 15 minutes. This is a way to begin bringing this debate on the creation of a Department of Homeland Security to a close and to allow our Government to begin the urgent business of creating this new Department. For those of us who have supported this idea for over a year now, this moment is long overdue. I am troubled by the draft of the substitute bill that began circulating yesterday which, in my view, has not only a number of very good parts in it which are quite similar to those contained in the bipartisan bill reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee but also has a number of serious shortcomings that I hope to discuss when it comes to the floor either later today or tomorrow. I am especially concerned that this new substitute bill creating a Department of Homeland Security also contains a number of special interest provisions that are being sprung on the Senate without prior warning or consideration. This is really not the time for that. We all ought to be focusing on the terrorist threat, the need to create a Department of Homeland Security to meet that threat, and not on using a vehicle that is probably moving to passage to put into it a host of pet personal projects. This is clearly not the time for that, and I hope the President and members of the leadership will discourage Senators and Members of the House from using this homeland security debate as a vehicle for accomplishing those more special purposes. More than 14 months have now passed since September 11, 2001, that day when terrorists viciously exploited our vulnerability and took the lives of 3,000 of our friends, family, and fellow Americans. Fifteen months have now passed since October of 2001, when Senator Specter and I initially proposed legislation creating a Department of Homeland Security to meet and beat the terrorist threat. This measure was not just bipartisan. It was, in fact, intended to be nonpartisan. Our proposal had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with giving our Government the ability to protect the American people from another terrorist attack. I point this out now, not out of pride but to make clear how far we have come, in some ways in the wrong direction, and how much time we have taken before making this urgent transformation. In the beginning, the vision of a Homeland Security Department was a recommendation and a report issued by a nonpartisan commission chaired by our former colleagues, Warren Rudman and Gary Hart. Then it was put forward in our committee bill. Then, as often happens to good ideas in a democracy, it gained support and steam in Congress. At the outset, President Bush and most Republicans in Congress resisted our legislation. I never took that resistance to be partisan, and I do not believe it was. The President argued that the coordinating Office of Homeland Security within the White House led by Governor Ridge would be strong enough to do this massive and complex job. So for 8 months, the administration did oppose the creation of a Homeland Security Department. In the meantime, the Governmental Affairs Committee held a total of 18 hearings, exploring every possible aspect of our homeland defense vulnerabilities and how they should be fixed. On May 22 of this year, the product of that work, a new version of the bill, was reported out of our committee, unfortunately, on a party line vote with all Democrats voting in favor of a Department of Homeland Security and all Republicans opposed. That partisan split did not last for long. A month or so later, last June, I was very pleased when the President and most of our Republican colleagues endorsed a proposal to create a Department of Homeland Security. Somebody once said it is common in Washington to see people change their positions but rare to see them change their minds. I like to believe that is exactly what happened in the White House. Based on experience, the President and his assistants changed their minds about the desirability of a Department of Homeland Security. We then worked with the White House and Senate Republicans to build the greatest possible support for a bipartisan bill. In July of this year, our committee sent such a bipartisan proposal to the Senate floor, which we began to debate in early September. We had a good debate on this proposal. As was acknowledged by all people on both sides, our committee legislation overlapped with the President's proposal and the House-passed bill on 90 or 95 percent of the issues and decisions involved. Somehow, despite finding ourselves on the same page, we could not find a way to turn the page together to create a more secure nation. The major sticking point was civil service protections and collective bargaining rights for homeland security employees. We tried in good faith to bridge that divide. We pushed repeatedly for a vote on a very reasonable bipartisan proposal. I ask unanimous consent that I be given 5 additional minutes to speak in morning business.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, if the Senator from Michigan will yield, I was hoping the chairman planned for further discussion because I would like a few moments myself to speak in favor of the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and my friend and colleague from Michigan. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Defense authorization bill and to thank the chairman of our committee, Senator Levin, for his leadership in this effort, obviously supported, in a very strong partnership, by Senator Warner, the ranking member, and other members of the committee of both parties. It is particularly important we pass this bill now, not only because our forces are preparing for the possibility of combat to remove the threat Saddam Hussein represents, but also because this proposal has important provisions that will lead to transforming our military to ensure it is even more capable of protecting the American people in the uncertain and dangerous future ahead of us. I do want to give credit to Senator Levin, who really has earned the gratitude of every American for his dedication and commitment not only to our national security in general but to the men and women in our Armed Forces. He has certainly ably explained the important provisions in this bill. Obviously, there will soon be a transition in the leadership of the committee. Senator Warner, I presume, will return as chairman. The fact these two colleagues have worked so well and so productively across party lines should give us all a sense of encouragement and hope about the work of this committee in the future. I have been particularly proud to have been able to have worked on some provisions I believe will improve the readiness of our military in the years to come, and that will help our military become a more important part of the national homeland security team. It has been a great honor to serve on the Armed Services Committee and to have worked with Senator Levin and Senator Warner in the actions they have taken, particularly to improve the compensation and quality of life of our military. I have also had the privilege, for the last year and a half--and I should say thanks to the occupant of the chair--to have served as the chair of the Airland Subcommittee, working very closely with Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania as my ranking member. We have now spent two sessions of Congress, as chair and ranking member, alternating our roles. I am particularly proud of the work our subcommittee has done with the full committee in providing additional resources to accelerate the Army's future force and to fully resource the combat aircraft that will serve as the backbone of our air forces and ensure our continued dominance of the air far into the future. It has also been good to work with Senator Santorum and others on provisions that will permit more timely transition of promising leap- ahead technologies from research to full utilization, and to require the Department of Defense to fully assess its role in homeland security, each of which are parts of the Defense authorization legislation that is now before the Senate. I worked with fellow members of both parties on the committee on a controversial matter that has reached resolution. It is a resolution that is unsatisfactory, but I know we have to move ahead with it; that is, the efforts to redress this longstanding inequity of a double standard that has allowed all Government retirees except our military retirees to receive both their full retirement pay and the disability compensation they are entitled to. Our original provision would have allowed all military retirees to draw both full-retired pay and any disability compensation they are entitled to. To me, this is an issue of fundamental fairness. As Senator Levin has explained, we were forced by administration opposition to scale back the provision with regard to military retirees. The compromise now in this conference report greatly reduces the number of retirees who will be able to draw both benefits I have described and that they are entitled to. It does authorize an enhanced special compensation only for military retirees with 20 or more years of service who incurred a qualifying combat-related disability. That means any rate of disability attributable to an injury for which the retiree was awarded the Purple Heart, or a service-connected disability rated at 60 percent or higher incurred as a direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous service, in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war, or through an instrumentality of war. This, unfortunately, does not cover all the retirees who should be eligible. It greatly reduces the number who will be covered. It is a step forward, and a significant step forward, for those who will benefit, but I hope--and I would guess that members of both parties on the Armed Services Committee join in the hope--in the years ahead, beginning next year, we continue to extend the number of retirees who are entitled to receive both retirement pay and disability compensation but do not, and to reach the point where all of them, in fact, receive it. That seems to be our moral responsibility in this case, and we are not yet fully meeting it. Bottom line, this is a critically important, otherwise not just adequate but adequate to the special needs of the moment, authorization bill. We are, after all, a nation at war. We forget that sometimes because our enemy does not have the normal attributes of enemies in war. They are not able to be seen on a battlefield massing their troops. They are not in ships at sea that we can observe. They certainly are not in the conventional military aircraft. But they are out there. They are plotting. They are planning. They are arming in conventional and unconventional ways to do us damage. This authorization bill will continue to provide the men and women who serve us in uniform, and those civilians who support them, the resources they need to keep us not only defended but the mightiest Nation in the history of the world. I thank Senator Levin, Senator Warner, and all the members of the committee for the work they have done on this legislation. I look forward to supporting this conference report. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. customs service

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the desk on behalf of Senator McCain and myself.