Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I will just inform my colleague that I just need to see his bill. One additional question: Has there been a cost estimate? I think I am familiar with old cost estimates on a clean 13-week extension, but I am not familiar with how much additional the Senator is asking. Does he have a cost estimate on his bill?

Mr. NICKLES. Just for my colleagues' information, I have not seen his bill. I understand from staff it was introduced on Thursday, but it has not been printed yet. I would appreciate a copy of the bill. We would like to review it and see what it is. I will work with my colleague and my friend from Oregon, who I know is interested in the bill as well. We have other colleagues who are also interested in passing some extension of unemployment. Whether it goes beyond the 13 weeks or not needs to be discussed. There are Democrats and Republicans--other Senators--besides just a couple who want to address this issue. At this point, I will object. But I will tell my colleague that I will work with all interested Senators to see if we can pass some form of unemployment compensation extension before we adjourn in the next week or so. We at least need to see the bill. This idea of having a bill introduced on Thursday and not printed in the Record yet, and then wanting to pass it on Tuesday, without other people looking at it, I think is premature. So at this point I shall object.

Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the vote was originally scheduled for 12 o'clock, with 1 hour debate equally divided. I know my colleague from Oregon wishes to speak on the unemployment compensation issue. I know he has not had a chance. Does the Senator want to move the vote to 12:15 p.m.?

Mr. NICKLES. That is perfectly acceptable. The assistant majority leader is basically saying this side gets 30 minutes and his side gets 30 minutes, and he is going to change the time allocation of the 30 minutes?

Mr. NICKLES. I have no objection, except I would like the Senator from Oregon to be able to speak.

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is entitled to speak. They can get their vote at 12:15 p.m. Can the Senator from Oregon have 5 minutes to speak on the unemployment compensation issue, and then we will divide the hour as described?

Mr. NICKLES. We will give him 5 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oregon have 5 minutes and then the hour be apportioned as described by the assistant Democratic leader.

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator from Oregon gets 5 minutes and then we have 1 hour.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I will ask the majority leader a question. The majority leader is wanting to move to a conference report on the Department of Justice reauthorization bill, is that correct?

Mr. NICKLES. So we will be setting aside the homeland security bill?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's explanation. I know there have been some negotiations, though not as fruitful as we would like, on homeland security, but I trust the negotiations will be ongoing, and maybe we will have some success upon the conclusion of the DOJ authorization bill. I shall not object.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Yes.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I will be happy to work with him on trying to schedule things that are convenient for all colleagues. I rise today to make a few comments I really wish I did not have to make. Yesterday, the majority leader of the Senate made a very strong, impassioned speech. I missed most of it, but I caught a lot of it last night on ``Nightline.'' I caught a transcript of it and then I saw it again. I will read part of it. Senator Daschle said: I can't believe any President or administration would politicize the war. But then I read in the paper this morning, now even the President, the President is quoted in the Washington Post this morning as saying that the Democratic--the Democratic-controlled Senate is not interested in the security of the American people. Senator Daschle was reading from The Washington Post. Unfortunately, though, he did not quote The Washington Post correctly and he certainly did not quote the President of the United States correctly. It is a very strong accusation saying the President of the United States would politicize the war and he quotes the President of the United States, but he quoted the President of the United States inaccurately. One, we should keep politics off the floor of the Senate, particularly when we are talking about issues of very significant importance such as war, war resolutions, or a resolution dealing with Iraq, which has been a troublesome spot for the United States. We have had several debates and discussions on Iraq. We should not be playing partisan politics. I do not think we should be attacking the President of the United States on a quote in the Washington Post, which may or may not be accurate. The way it was stated by Senator Daschle was inaccurate, and I will read the President's quote from the Washington Post which was alluded to, and then I will again read Senator Daschle's quote and we will see directly they are not the same. What the President said when he was in New Jersey on September 24 was: So I asked the Congress to give me the flexibility necessary to be able to deal with the true threats of the 21st century by being able to move the right people to the right place at the right time, so we can better assure America we're doing everything possible. The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this President, and future Presidents, to better keep the American people secure. The President goes on to say: And people are working hard in Washington to get it right in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats. See, this isn't a partisan issue. This is an American issue. This is an issue which is vital to our future. It'll help us determine how secure we'll be. Senator Gramm, a Republican, Senator Miller, a Democrat, are working hard to bring people together. And the Senate must listen to them. That is what the President said, and to take out of that a statement that says the Democratic-controlled Senate is not interested in the security of the American people, is not what the President said. If someone is making a statement that receives a lot of attention, there must have been notification to the press this is going to be a very important statement, and to make a statement misquoting the President of the United States on an issue like this and accuse him of politicizing the war, when the issue was homeland security, I think is a real injustice to the President of the United States and to the quality and flavor of debate we should be having in the Senate. We should not be politicizing a debate dealing with war and talking about international repercussions. And there are repercussions when we make speeches, particularly when the Democrat leader makes a speech. I cannot help but think the headlines that came out as a result of his speech brought about some comfort for those who really oppose the United States policies or those who are opposed to formulating an international coalition the administration is presently trying to put together in the United Nations, in Europe, and in the Middle East. This President, like his father, was trying to build an international coalition. I can't help but think when they read that the Democrat leader of the Senate is accusing the President of politicizing the war and misquoting the President, that gives them a lot of ammo. That gives them a lot of justification for Saddam Hussein or others to say: See, I told you they are just politicizing this war. They want to do this for political purposes, when that was not what the President said. Again, when I first heard of this I thought, well, let me find out what the President said. I am a friend of the President's. I am willing to defend him, but I wanted to see what he had to say. I know the President very well and I said, I can't believe he would say Senate Democrats are not concerned about national security because that is not factual. But then when I read these comments, not only did he not say it, he didn't say anything close to it. Then in the next sentence down he said: And people are working hard in Washington to get it right in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats. I wish Senator Daschle would have read that. I wish he would have read that he compliments both Senator Gramm, a Republican, and Senator Miller, a Democrat, and he never once said what was said on the floor yesterday. He never once said Senate Democrats are not interested in national security. He didn't say it. But that was the attack that was made yesterday. I just think of the international repercussions, and I am thinking of this enormous challenge to build an international coalition, one that President Bush 1 was able to do in 1990 and 1991, an enormous coalition, but it was not easy to build. It is a coalition, I might mention, that was put together, and very successfully, in 1991, that dissipated over the next 8 years and is now gone. So President Bush, this President Bush at the present time, is trying to rebuild the coalition. Then to be attacked by the majority leader, misquoting him, I think is very inappropriate. I also wish to make a comment about Vice President Gore. Before I do that, I want to read another. The President made two speeches. I scanned both. I didn't want to misstate what the President said. I like to be factually accurate. If I ever misquote anybody, it will be a mistake. So I read the President's speech that he made at another event. This goes to the same subject. I believe this was made on September 25th. Right now in the Senate the Senate feels like they want to micromanage the process, not all Senators but some Senators. They feel they have to have a pile of books this thick that will hamstring future administrations how to protect our homeland. I am not going to stand for it. I appreciate John's vote on a good homeland security bill. And the Senate must hear this, because the American people understand it. They should not respond to special interests-- they ought to respond to this interest: protecting the American people from a future attack. Again, he didn't say anything about the Democrat Senate not supporting national security. But there was a real political statement made the other day. That was by former Vice President Al Gore. Again, I would like to think that Presidents and former Presidents and former Vice Presidents wouldn't undercut the existing President and Vice President on the floor--while they are trying to build coalitions. That is exactly what the former Vice President did. Former Vice President Gore, in speaking to, a group of Democrats or a group of people in San Francisco, had a lot of outlandish things to say. I read--well, he is trying to garner support from the political left or right, and I guess he has that right to do so. But I would think he would have the dignity to try to maintain the dignity of the Office of Vice President and not undermine an existing administration that has a difficult challenge to try to rebuild a coalition. This is one of the things Vice President Gore said on September 23: To begin with, to put things first, I believe we ought to be focusing on efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11 and who have thus far gotten away with it. For Vice President Gore to say that is grossly irresponsible, and is very inconsistent, I might say, with some of the things he had to say in the past. It is very troubling to me, when I look at the previous administration and what they did or didn't do in response to previous acts of terrorism, for him to be blaming this administration for not being aggressive enough in fighting the war on terrorism, and I see terrorist attacks that happened during Vice President Gore's administration, President Clinton's administration, and I look at the response they had against terrorism and I say, Where is it? For him to be critical of this President when this President has made an aggressive effort to combat terrorism and basically eliminating it-- going into Afghanistan, helped in liberating the Afghan people, dispersing al-Qaida, going after and rounding up and killing hundreds of terrorists--for the Vice President to be critical of this administration is mind-boggling. I remember when the U.S. Embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998; 224 people were killed, including 12 Americans, almost all of those were employees of the United States. Five thousand people were wounded. And what did we do? Well, we lobbed a few cruise missiles hoping maybe we would get Bin Laden and then we didn't do anything else. That was in August of 1998. Yet we didn't do anything, after that for the next couple of years; the previous administration did nothing. And then the U.S.S. Cole was attacked on October 12, the year 2000; 17 U.S. sailors were killed; 39 were wounded. The entire ship could have sunk. What did we do? Nothing. President Clinton said: If, as it now appears this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable. If their intention was to deter us from our mission in promoting peace and security in the Middle East, they will fail utterly. President Clinton, as a result of the bombings of the U.S. Embassies, on August 7 of 1998 said: These acts of terrorist violence are abhorrent. They are inhuman. We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice no matter what or how long it takes. That was President Clinton's remarks, and I would assume Vice President Gore would agree with those remarks, but we didn't do anything. And we didn't follow up. We did lob a few cruise missiles, but we didn't stay after Bin Laden. We could have. We could have sent some special forces. We could have sent some airplanes over there. We could have been very aggressive in trying to hunt down the people who killed hundreds of people in those two attacks, but we didn't do it. We flat didn't do it. As a result, some of the people who planned those two activities also planned and carried out the airplane bombings in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and in the fields of Pennsylvania--probably headed towards the Capitol--because we didn't follow up. We didn't pursue them as aggressively as we should have in 1998, 1999, 2000. Then to have the former Vice President be critical of this administration, that has moved aggressively to combat terrorism and go after the terrorism--I am very troubled by that. Very troubled by it, indeed. We are all entitled to our opinions. We are all entitled to state what we think should be done. But I happen to be one who believes that when you are in a war, you should be working together and not try to undermine the President of the United States. I am afraid, as a result of both the comments that were made by the majority leader and the comments that were made by the former Vice President, I think it does undermine our united efforts to combat terrorism and to go after those people who are directly responsible. Finally, I want to make a couple of other comments. In dealing with the bill we have before us, Senator Gramm has mentioned that he has an amendment, supported by the President, endorsed by Senator Miller. I compliment them for their work on this issue. Unfortunately, the amendment tree is filled. I don't want to get too bogged down in the parliamentary jargon, but I am looking at this tree. I want to read a quote Senator Daschle once said in June. He said: I announced at the very beginning of my tenure as majority leader I will never fill the tree to preclude amendments. I am going to hold to that promise. That was made on June 10. I happen to be one who doesn't like filling the tree, either. But this tree is filled and why is it filled? It is to deny people a vote, the Senator from Texas and Georgia having a right to a vote on their amendments next. They want to obscure it so we vote on other amendments first. Then the issue of cloture--we are going to have a vote tonight or we are going to have a vote tomorrow. Well, the purpose of cloture is to deny them the vote and it is to falsely allude to--maybe people on this side of the aisle are filling the tree, which is false. We are not filibustering the Interior bill. I said that several times, and I happen to consider myself a person of my word. I will let you know if I am filibustering a bill. The Senator from Nevada knows me pretty well. I will let him know if I am filibustering a bill. He will know it. No one is filibustering this bill. Well, ``We are going to file cloture.'' They know they have to get 60 votes for cloture. They won't have it today and they won't have it tomorrow. The Senators from Texas and Georgia introduced the President's package. It has been modified to accommodate a lot of Senators and to make sure we don't have anything that would be intrusive against public employees. It has a lot of protections in it. It is a well-thought-out amendment and is very similar to many of the adoptions made in the House of Representatives. They are entitled to their vote. Will cloture deny them that opportunity? This amendment would not be germane postcloture. It would fall. I have said repeatedly that they are entitled to their vote, and they are going to get their vote. I urge my colleagues, we could do a lot better in legislating if we didn't fill trees, if we didn't file cloture every other day, and if we worked together to come up with a reasonable alternative to allow people to vote on this alternative, to vote on the Gramm-Miller alternative, to vote on other alternatives and be finished with the bill. The same thing with the Interior bill--if we had a vote on the various proposals dealing with fire. Let us vote. That is what we are paid to do. Let us vote. I urge my colleagues, let us not use the floor of the Senate to be accusing this President of politicizing the war; the Vice President as well. I think that undermines the Senate and is not worthy of debate in the Senate.

Mr. NICKLES. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I do know that when we have appropriations we have disputes on amendments. The way to dispose of those amendments is not to file cloture because it won't work. The way to dispose of those amendments is to, if you do not like it, move to table it, or accept it. Maybe you accept it, or drop it. But you deal with the amendment. I am embarrassed that we have been on two bills for 4 weeks and we have made so little progress. We have spent the entire month of September, and the end of the fiscal year is next month, and we haven't passed one appropriations bill this month.--not one. We have only had three or four votes on each bill--both the Interior bill and the homeland security bill. That is pretty pathetic progress. As a result, we have only passed three appropriations bills out of the Senate. It is maybe one of the worst records we have had in a long time. That is not acceptable. I can't help but think if the majority or minority would get together and say let us bring up these bills, move them quickly; let us table nongermane amendments; let us get our work done; that it would help make the process work a lot better. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. I just want to correct the record and say I have scrutinized the President's speech. And I have never seen where this quote--I just gave it to the clerk--this quote comes from Monday. I looked at the President's speech. I have the President's speech. I will enter it into the Record. But it did not say the Democratic-controlled Senate is not interested in the security of the people. Again, we have to be factually accurate. If we are going to quote the President of the United States and accuse him of politicizing the war, let us have an accurate quote. You can't take only part of a newspaper, the part that says the Democrat Senate--I guess what was not in quotes. But it was read on the floor like it was quotes; like it was a direct quote from the President. The President did not say that. Even the Washington Post didn't say it. You can't say, well, the Washington Post had it wrong; that the Washington Post inferred that he meant the Democrat Senate. But that is not what he said. When it is something of this significance, when it has international repercussions, and when it can undermine our efforts in trying to get countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Germany, Italy, and others to be on our side; to say the President said the Democratic-controlled Senate is not interested in national security, when he didn't say it, is a real injustice.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will just repeat to my colleague, you may find a quote from the RNC, and I am sure we could finds things from the Democratic National Committee to be quite partisan. What I stated was that the President did not state what was alluded to yesterday on the floor when the majority leader said that, quote: the Democratic Senate is not interested in the security of the American people. That is what he said. I am just saying, quite frankly, the President of the United States did not say it. I reviewed the entire speech. I ask unanimous consent to have that speech printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES. I read the speech. Read the next paragraph. I have read the one paragraph. Read the next paragraph. The Senator from West Virginia will be interested in this. I will read the two relevant paragraphs again: The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. He didn't say the Democrats in the Senate. He didn't say what was stated on the floor. Let's be factual. Let's be honest. Let's say exactly what was said. Let's not construe and say something else. Let me go on. The President said: I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this President, and future Presidents, to better keep the American people secure. And people are working hard in Washington to get it right in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats. That is in the President's speech. That doesn't sound very partisan to me. See-- This is again the President: See, this isn't a partisan issue. This is an American issue. This is an issue which is vital to our future. It'll help us determine how secure we'll be. Senator Gramm, a Republican, Senator Miller, a Democrat, are working hard to bring people together. That is not a partisan speech. That is not flailing all Senate Democrats. That is not accusing all Senate Democrats as being unpatriotic. Quite far from it. So to stand on the floor and say, well, the President said that six times in the last few days, I don't believe is factually accurate. And to send signals to our allies and our adversaries that this is politicizing the war, or that some people think we might be, is politicizing the war, and it is wrong. And it sends the wrong signal. It sends all kinds of wrong signals, and it shouldn't be done. If you are going to quote the President of the United States, not his election committee, not some mysterious tape that shows up someplace, but if you are going to quote the President of the United States, you ought to quote him accurately. And that was not done. And it is probably one of the harshest attacks I have ever seen on a sitting President of the United States in my 22 years in the Senate--the harshest. And at a time when we are in the process of trying to build an international coalition, the timing could not be much worse. Also, I am bothered that people would say: Well, he said it. I'm just sure he did. Well, he didn't say it. And if somebody has a quote--an accurate quote--that shows I am incorrect, I will stand here and say, oops, I'm wrong, because I believe more than anything my integrity means more to me than whatever somebody else says. I want to be factually accurate. Before I came down yesterday to the floor, I said: Give me a transcript of the speech. I wanted to see exactly what it said. I didn't want to say: It didn't sound like something President Bush would say to me. And I have heard him give many campaign speeches. I know him pretty well. That doesn't sound like him. Where is it in his speech? Oh, he didn't say that. He even went on to say both Democrats and Republicans are working to pass a good bill. And he never castigated all Senate Democrats as being unpatriotic or not interested in national security--he didn't say it. Surprisingly enough, just because something is in the Washington Post does not make it right. The Washington Post was not even quoted accurately. I mean, come on now. This is a serious issue. I want to conclude with a statement. The Senate of the United States is a great institution, and I don't think it behooves us to quote a flier from the Republican National Committee, or the Democrat National Committee, and play a lot of politics, and say let's see what we can pull out of these documents. We are talking about a quote from the President not these fliers and statements from other people. I can pull out more quotes right now from President Clinton and Vice President Gore stating their efforts to repudiate Saddam Hussein, the need for strong enforcement of resolutions, and on and on, that they never enforced--that they never enforced. There were 16 resolutions passed in the United Nations dealing with Iraq, and the previous administration talked tough, lobbed a few bombs, a few cruise missiles, but we never enforced them. The net result is there have been no arms control inspections going on in Iraq for the last four years. It is a lot more dangerous today than it was four years ago. When I read these previous statements, both by President Clinton and Vice President Gore, about how we have to get tough against Iraq, and then we didn't do anything, it makes me wonder: Wait a minute, what is going on? So now we are saying we should adopt a resolution that is not too far different than what we adopted unanimously in 1998 with almost no debate, and people are acting like: Wait a minute, the sky is falling. Or they try to move an issue from homeland security into the war on Iraq. I don't know if that is deliberate or just a mistake, but there is a real problem there. You can't be sending mixed signals to our potential adversaries and/or our potential allies, when we are trying to get people on our side, and misquote the President of the United States on something that important.

Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield.