Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. SARBANES. I will quote this: First, the basic concept is flawed. Combining 22 separate departments and agencies with nearly 200,000 employees into one super agency is a recipe for bureaucratic chaos that will distract workers from their security duties, rather than sharpen their focus. New bosses, new locations, new personnel rules, new rivalries, new turf battles--these are the issues that will most concern workers in the years just ahead. How helpful is that? The recent squabble between the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, neither of which is to be included in the new Department, demonstrates there is little chance of blending separate agencies to eliminate overlapping, and clarifying control can be anything but a bloody task. Then they go on to say: Union rights and other worker protections will be stripped from the employees of the new Department because the President says he needs new flexibility to hire, fire, and move people around. No convincing national security rationale has been offered to justify this broad power grab. The problems inherent in this legislation, I have come to the conclusion, will divert focus, energy, and attention from the substantive challenge of providing homeland security to this kind of a procedural fight. They are going to have to get a new location, new organization. They are going to be spending all their time on getting the boxes on the chart instead of focusing on the substance of the job that confronts them.

Mr. SARBANES. That is one of the basic points the Senator has been making consistently, as I understand it.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to take advantage of these few seconds to thank the very able Senator from West Virginia for raising these extremely important questions about this legislation. This editorial I made reference to that was in the Baltimore Sun talked about all these other provisions that were coming in, and it went on to talk about the basic concept of this bill itself--something the Senator has been addressing for days on the floor of the Senate. Listen to this. They are talking about the homeland security bill: First, the basic concept is flawed. Combining 22 separate departments and agencies with nearly 200,000--

Mr. SARBANES. No. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I ask the distinguished Senator from West Virginia: In July, the Brookings Institution issued a report concerning this reorganization, and they said the following, and I am quoting from them now: Any fundamental reorganization represents a huge managerial undertaking, one that becomes ever more daunting as the number of agencies to be included increases. The danger is that top managers will be preoccupied for months, if not years, with getting the reorganization right, thus giving insufficient attention to their real job, taking concrete action to counter the terrorist threat at home. This Brookings report advocated some consolidation of agencies, but it proposed a much smaller, more streamlined consolidation, and the report went on to say: ``Reorganization is not a panacea. In fact, there is a risk that reorganization could interfere with, rather than enhance, homeland security tasks.'' Certainly, changes should be made only when there is a compelling case that consolidation offers clear benefits. I supported a proposal--and this leads up to my question--that the Senator from West Virginia offered earlier in the consideration of this issue, which would have undertaken to do a reorganization, but would have phased it and would have brought it back at periodic times for further scrutiny, examination, and implementation by the Congress. Was that the approach which the Senator had taken?

Mr. SARBANES. First, Mr. President, I appreciate the generous and gracious remarks of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I must say that with all of my schooling he mentioned, I have learned more from him than at any other point along the way. I am extremely appreciative to him for that. I did want to cite this quote that the Senator has used in the course of this debate, which is so appropriate to our situation, from the Roman poet and the adviser to Nero, Gaius Petronious Arbiter. It is another instant in which the Senator has enlightened this institution through his use of Roman history. The quote could not be more on point. It is written as though it were written for the current situation. It is as follows: We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and the wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization. We could not have a more appropriate quote to the situation that we are confronting today. If the Senator would indulge me for just a couple of minutes, I tie in with the demoralization, confusion, and inefficiency what this legislation is doing to loyal, dedicated, hard-working, committed Federal employees. I am very frank to say taking from our employees rights that they now have, which this legislation will do on the grounds of flexibility to enhance homeland security, will do just the contrary. It will deal a blow to homeland security. We are talking about dedicated employees who are serving our country. They have been involved in protecting homeland security. They are loyal and committed workers. We want them to go on providing our high level of service, yet this legislation does not protect longstanding rights to bargain collectively about issues of importance, nor does it retain important civil service protections which have been worked out over a very long period of time. The Federal employees in this new Department, all of whom are already working to protect our national security, ought to have the same rights and protections they heretofore have had. Taking these rights away, cutting them down, will undercut the morale of these employees. We will get lesser performance, although I think these are very dedicated people. In contrast, if we protect our workforce, our workforce will protect us. Let me turn it around the other way. Our federal employees have been protecting us. Why should we withdraw from them important employee protections? Many of these protections came into being in order to protect whistleblowers who are trying to do a better job, to eliminate cronyism or favoritism or unfair labor practices. Some say that membership in unions by employees in the Homeland Department will impede efforts to protect our national security. I find this difficult to understand. There are currently 200,000 union employees--employees who have a union affiliation--at the Department of Defense. Many of those employees have high-level security clearances. This never seemed to impair our national security during the cold war. Many of the first responders on September 11 were union members. Their membership in unions in no way hindered their remarkable displays of bravery. They were thinking only of their duty to their country. Many agencies that already protect homeland security have union members amongst their ranks: The Border Patrol, the Customs Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to name just a few. These employees are already doing their job well. Are they to be rewarded by stripping them of these union protections, of these civil service rights? We have spent a long part of our history working out these employee rights, and they are important to the success of the Government and to the attraction and retention of the best possible Federal employees. We ought not to be diminishing these rights and protections, as this legislation does. I think that stripping the employees of these protections will harm national security rather than help it. That is a subissue within the larger issue on which the Senator from West Virginia has been focusing, about the dislocation that is going to be created by this sweeping proposal, the one that brings us back, of course, to this wonderful quote from Gaius Petronius Arbiter. I urge my colleagues to reexamine this closely. I know this issue has now been politicized. No one is against homeland security. No one is against enhancing the security that our people feel, and protecting it. The question then becomes, what is the best way to do it? We have had studies on this point. The Brookings Institute made a very careful evaluation. They said they thought some consolidation was in order, but they thought it should be limited, it should be done carefully, it should be done thoughtfully, it should be done with prudence. They pointed out, of course, that it is a huge managerial undertaking; that it becomes more daunting as the number of agencies to be included increases. And then last summer they said in their report: The danger is top managers will be preoccupied for months if not years with getting the reorganization right, thus giving insufficient attention to their real job, taking concrete action to counter the terrorist threat at home. I think that is absolutely on point and it is a point which the able Senator from West Virginia has made repeatedly, of course, during this debate. It really tracks what Gaius Petronius Arbiter said, when he said: I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.

Mr. SARBANES. It is sweeping in its dimension.

Mr. SARBANES. It seems to me that this is a far more sensible way to proceed. First, I think it maintains a better balance with respect to the roles of the executive and the legislative branches of our Government. I think the Senator has been absolutely right to underscore the fact that what is at stake here is a tremendous grant of authority to the executive branch.

Mr. SARBANES. Secondly, I think that review process is more likely, far more likely, to produce beneficial results, because as the Senator said earlier today, the more scrutiny and discussion you have, the higher the likelihood--not a guarantee, but the higher the likelihood-- that you will have a better result. As I have listened to the Senator over these weeks of the debate, I have increasingly come to have very deep concerns about what we are doing with this legislation. I feel for the Senator when he says people are not--even now, as we near the last hour, focusing fully on the implications and the consequences of what we are discussing. Back in September, the Baltimore Sun published an editorial, and I want to read a couple of paragraphs from it. This is from September 23 of this year: Months of debate have made clear that this bureaucratic boondoggle offers no promise of making the homeland more secure. Worse, it takes the focus off the need for tighter oversight of the Nation's security systems. President Bush offered the most sweeping government reorganization in a half a century, largely as a political and public relations tactic. He was trying to counter Senate Democrats who were advancing similar legislation of their own. He timed the unveiling of his plan to drown out the testimony of FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, who was blowing the whistle on the security failures of her hidebound agency that blinded it to the clues of the September 11 attacks. Shifting 22 Federal agencies and 170,000 workers into a new department will cost billions but will do nothing to solve the problems agent Rowley addressed. What is needed is greater sharing, coordination and synthesis of the security information collected by the myriad agencies. But this new department will not even include the FBI and the CIA which are the two premier intelligence gatherers. Nor is there any guarantee that greater sharing would take place between them if they were together. I think this is right on point and parallels much of what the Senator, as I understand it, has been arguing.

Mr. SARBANES. And that is exactly what we are confronted with here. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. One of the things we could do if we had more time is get the special interest provisions out of this bill. As I understand it, and with appropriate respect to the Senator from Texas, those provisions were never in the alternatives being offered in the Senate as we considered homeland security. In fact, I may or may not agree with your provisions on homeland security and think it should be done differently, but at least it was homeland security. Now we discover and are discovering every moment there are other special interest provisions that are in this legislation. I argue we should not invoke cloture, if for no other reason than in order to address those special interest provisions.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. I say to the Senator, I think it is clear, I understand his point on the homeland security provisions about now or next year. But it seems to me clear that next year you will not have these special interest provisions that are in this legislation. They were not in your legislation. They have been put in here by the House. Some of them are absolutely outrageous.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. In that sense, it is neutral on the substance of the issue; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Would the Senator yield for a question about his second amendment on the stock option?

Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding that the amendment the Senator from Michigan is talking about on stock options does not have a substantive result contained in the amendment. It is simply a request that the Financial Accounting Standards Board study the issue and report back.

Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding that the unemployment extension benefits that the House is considering, first of all, are embraced within the package that encompasses other things as well. Second, and more importantly perhaps, the unemployment insurance benefits issue itself is very limited and falls far short of the sort of amendment the Senator from Michigan is considering in terms of extending these unemployment insurance benefits, which is a growing crisis in the country. We need to recognize that. I certainly support the Senator from Michigan in his effort to ensure the unemployment benefits. But what the House is considering, as I understand it, is grossly inadequate in terms of addressing the unemployment insurance. It doesn't even carry forward a full extension of the current situation beyond that. There are going to be people falling off the cliff here very shortly. Many of them have already fallen off the cliff.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield on that question?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I commend the Senator for offering this unanimous consent request. Secondly, in response to the points raised by the Senator from Oklahoma, as I understand it, the bill provides for an additional 13 weeks. If you have exhausted your benefits, having drawn the basic 26 weeks, and the additional 13 weeks that we have provided for in March of this year, you could then draw another 13 weeks. So for that limited group would, in fact, get 52 weeks. I point out that that limited group is unemployed. They have not been able to get a job in a labor market that is not working. In fact, Chairman Greenspan, yesterday, testifying before the Joint Economic Committee, when asked about extending unemployment insurance benefits, testified that the extended unemployment insurance provides a timely boost of disposable income. He acknowledged that we are currently in a period where jobs are falling. He stated: I have always argued that in periods like this that the economic restraints on the unemployment insurance system almost surely ought to be eased. That is exactly what this legislation seeks to do. Secondly, there is $27 billion in the trust fund to pay unemployment insurance benefits, specifically designed to meet this kind of situation. Those moneys have been paid into the trust fund over a period of time. The whole system was structured to have this trust fund build up in good times, and then to utilize it in bad times. We certainly are facing bad times now. In fact, we have 2.2 million who have lost, or will lose, their unemployment benefits by the end of the year. The long-term unemployed--those more than 26 weeks--rose 71,000 last month alone. There are now more than 1.6 million long-term unemployed--a million more than when President Bush took office. What the Senator is seeking to do was done, I must point out, under President Bush the first. For the life of me, I don't understand why President Bush the second won't agree to and support this measure. What are these people to do who have lost their jobs? The premise of the system is you get some short-term support, the labor market picks up, and you can go back and find a job. They cannot find these jobs. In fact, not only can they not find them, more people are losing their jobs. So the labor market is constraining, not expanding. These people need help. There is $27 billion that has been paid into the trust fund for the very purpose of providing unextended employment insurance benefits. Now, the Senator in this legislation has not, as I understand it, sought to do some of the other proposals that have been floating around here in terms of providing a more extended coverage of the system, upping the benefits and other proposals. There are many who think the existing system is inadequate. She is not seeking to correct that, as I understand it. We are only seeking to do this 13-week extension. I certainly think we ought to do that before this Congress leaves. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I rise today to commend the Maryland, Virginia, and Federal law enforcement agencies on the capture and arrest of the snipers who terrorized our region. For the citizens of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, life slowly returned to normal after the 23 days of sniper shootings in October, but life will never return to normal for the families of the victims who were killed, and those who are still recovering from their injuries. I would like to extend my sympathies to those families and to say that our hearts go out to them in this difficult time. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of the police forces in our region, the sniper attacks were stopped before they could do more harm. An unprecedented level of cooperation and coordination among the different jurisdictions involved, as well as among the Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, led to the capture of the two individuals now charged in the sniper attacks. The task force created during the sniper attacks did an excellent and effective job of sharing information, working together, and putting the safety of our citizens first. I thank all of the men and women who worked so tirelessly to apprehend the suspects and commend them for a job well done. The Federal Government also played an important role in the investigation. The FBI provided support to State and local police forces in conducting the manhunt, the ATF helped track and research the guns and bullets used by the snipers, and the Department of Defense provided planes to monitor the region from the air. On October 8, I wrote a letter to Attorney General Ashcroft stating my support for Montgomery County Police Chief Charles Moose's request for Federal aid in the investigation, and I am extremely grateful that Federal aid was granted. While it is impossible to thank all of those involved, I would like to acknowledge by name the resolve, extraordinary dedication and performance of Montgomery County, Maryland Police Chief Charles Moose and County Executive Doug Duncan, FBI Special Agent Gary Bald, and ATF agent Mike Bouchard, who became the public face of the crisis and the investigation for people all across the country. Their leadership, calm determination, and obvious skill in the most trying and tragic of circumstances, without precedent in our area, helped inform and assure the public that everything possible was being done. Now that this multistate manhunt is over, the States involved must deal with the financial costs of the investigation. In order to assist area States in paying for these costs, I joined with Senators Mikulski, Warner and Allen in a letter to the Department of Justice requesting Federal reimbursement for the enormous costs of the investigation. I am confident that these suspects will be brought to justice and that this may provide some small measure of comfort for those who lost loved ones in these attacks. The 23 days in October were a trying time for our area and the uncertainty of the sniper attacks unnerved residents of the region. The weight of this concern has been lifted, thanks to the hard work of our area law enforcement agencies. But for the families of those killed in the attacks, their loss will never be remedied and for them the weight will never be lifted. We must move forward and reflect on the lessons learned from these tragic attacks. All jurisdictions involved, as well as the expanding number of jurisdictions in which these two suspects allegedly committed crimes, must now focus on preparedness. We have learned how effective the coordination of law enforcement agencies can be, and we must plan for such coordination in the future. And we in Congress can take steps to help States improve preparedness, coordinate law enforcement agencies, and use tools such as ballistic fingerprinting to prevent this from ever happening again.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of legislation to provide more bankruptcy judges for several States, including three additional bankruptcy judgeships for my own State of Maryland. This legislation was introduced by Senator Biden and is being cosponsored by Senators Carper, Edwards, Feinstein, and Schumer. This bill represents a significant step forward in our efforts to strengthen Maryland's Federal bankruptcy court. I have long been involved in this effort, and I commend Senator Biden for his efforts in this area. We have been working for several years to get these additional judgeships approved, yet no legislation has been passed that would authorize them. With such inaction, the problem facing Maryland's sitting bankruptcy judges has grown, and Maryland has remained without the additional judgeships it so desperately needs to make our bankruptcy system work. Maryland's four sitting bankruptcy judges continue to show remarkable dedication given the extraordinary burdens placed upon them. However, additional judgeships remain essential to the fair and timely administration of the bankruptcy code for all of the businesses and individuals that come before the Maryland District. Since 1992, we have been requesting additional judgeships for the District of Maryland; thus far none has been approved. In 1992, there were approximately 15,000 bankruptcy filings in the District of Maryland. From 1998 to 2001, there were over 30,000 bankruptcy filings per year in Maryland. The caseload has doubled for the sitting bankruptcy judges in the past 10 years, and they still do their work with only 4 sitting bankruptcy judges. This dire need for additional judgeships in Maryland has yet to be remedied by the Congress. This legislation provides three additional judgeships for Maryland. These three additional judgeships would help reduce the overwhelming workload of the four sitting bankruptcy judges. However, a September 2002 recommendation from the U.S. Judicial Conference calls for the creation of four additional judgeships in our State. And while the District of Maryland will be pleased to get three additional judges, the recommendation of the Judicial Conference for four additional bankruptcy judgeships demonstrates just how critical the situation is. As of June 30, 2002, the national weighted filing average for bankruptcy judges was 1,641. The weighted filing per judge for Maryland's 4 bankruptcy judges was 3,030 almost twice the national average. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support S. 3074, which would provide much needed help on the bankruptcy courts in Maryland and across the Nation.