Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. May I ask the Senator, if the end result is exactly the same, why does he insist on proposing this amendment?

Mr. THOMPSON. Maybe we have finally settled it. I heard the phrase ``additional requirement.'' You can argue that because this is such a massive job, we ought to hamstring the President a little bit or you can argue because this is such a massive job that we should not. But the Senator is absolutely correct in that he has laid on an additional requirement. That is the only thing I think we have been trying to establish.

Mr. THOMPSON. I am happy to yield.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, let me pose a question to my friend from Connecticut. Is it the Senator's determination that this language he quoted under subsection (2) that ``The President may issue an order suspending any provision of this chapter . . . if the President determines that the suspension is necessary in the interest of national security,'' is it the Senator's understanding that would supersede the new requirement that he find the responsibilities of the agency have materially changed?

Mr. THOMPSON. The Senator points out the provision I just quoted is with respect to an agency or activity located outside.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, that is a big difference. I do not think it has anything to do with employees inside the United States of America. I think that section only has to do with employees outside the United States of America.

Mr. THOMPSON. Which would leave us, once again, in a situation where the President is having to make a new determination because there is ``concern''--concern we did not have with regard to any of these other Presidents, but we have concern with this President at this time. One can argue it is minimal. One can argue it is almost the same. We are creating some interesting legislative history here. I wonder how anybody can ever contest the President after this discussion, quite frankly, but if that is the case, why in the world do we want to announce to the world we want to spend 2, 3, 4 days arguing over whether or not to diminish the President's authority a little bit or whether or not to put up an additional hurdle before him, when he is saying to us and the world--presumably, I do not know how onerous this is going to be; perhaps it will not be very onerous at all. It is just not right. It is just not right to diminish the President's authority or to put up additional requirements of him at this time.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Could I inquire as to how much time we have remaining?

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, before we vote, it is important we understand the parameters of the Nelson-Chafee-Breaux amendment. Two points: One has to do with the President's national security authority, and the other has to do with flexibility. This amendment is purported to be a compromise. Senator Gramm has worked diligently, and he and Senator Miller have made about 25 changes. They have a compromise that is a good one and one the President supports. The compromise represented by the Nelson-Chafee-Breaux amendment is not really a good compromise, with all due respect to those who have made this effort, because of those two areas I mentioned. With regard to the President's national security authority, it changes the current law which says if the President makes a determination the primary function of an agency has to do with national security, he can act under that law to protect the national security. The changes in the Nelson amendment would make it so the President would have to make a determination the activity involved would have to be related to terrorist activities, and then this additional requirement that the new position to which the people in the agency have been transferred, the majority of those people have essentially had a change in the function of their job and those things are reviewable by courts. I understood my friend from Louisiana to say and debate awhile ago this court case we were all talking about basically did not give any judicial review. Maybe I misunderstood him because when I look at the case, it is quite clear there is judicial review under current law and under the Nelson amendment. However, under current law, the President only has one hurdle. He has to make a determination with regard to national security. Under the Nelson amendment, he has to make a determination with regard to terrorism, but he also has to make a determination with regard to the nature of the actual work being carried out by the various employees--the President of the United States. Two challenges now can be made to the President's activity. Now when you go to court, the President has a rebuttable presumption of regulator. There is still jurisdiction there, there is still an additional hurdle. Why in the world do we want to impose an additional hurdle for this President that we have not imposed on prior Presidents? That is No. 1. Second, with regard to flexibility, the House sent over six areas of flexibility. The Nelson amendment takes two of those areas off the table altogether. The Nelson amendment says the new Secretary cannot touch the labor-management chapter. It says the new Secretary cannot touch the appeals chapter. Both are areas we know need changing. Both are areas we know need improvement. We cannot even negotiate with regard to those areas. They are totally off the table.

Mr. THOMPSON. I appreciate the attentiveness of the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues again for their eloquent statements on behalf of their positions. I think the issue with regard to this amendment has been well clarified because of those statements. I think it is pretty obvious now that there is almost unanimity that we need to proceed with the homeland security bill-- unanimity in this body. There is disagreement as to whether we ought to get about doing it or whether we should delay it. I think that is the fundamental issue with regard to this amendment. This amendment that has been offered by the Senator from West Virginia would basically postpone the implementation of the new Department for at least a year. The President's proposals in the House and Senate bills all establish directorates. They list responsibilities, transfer funds to agencies. Senator Byrd strikes from the Lieberman substitute all language spelling out responsibilities and transfers of functions for each directorate, leaving only language establishing each directorate under an Under Secretary. Instead, he requires the administration to provide legislative proposals in the future, no sooner than February of 2003 for border and transportation, no sooner than 120 days later for intelligence and for critical infrastructure, and no sooner than 120 days after that for emergency preparedness and science and technology. The overall thrust is to delay implementation of this bill. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we believe, in the exercise of our responsibilities as representatives of the people of our States, that that is the thing to do, that is where we are. I suggest we already have legislative proposals before us that the Senator from West Virginia would have the administration produce sometime next year. We in government, especially those in the Governmental Affairs Committee, have been watching and listening and discussing for years the way the Government in many respects is dysfunctional. It has been created and added onto little by little over the years. It needs reorganization in the worst sort of way. We have been listening and watching and discussing the fact that the threat to our country from rogue nations and from terrorists is growing and growing and growing. This is not new information to any of us. The disorganization of government and the growing threat of especially nuclear proliferation have been things that have been before this body for years and years and years. Unfortunately, it takes something like September 11 to get us activated so we even have a discussion such as this. Now we have a proposal that says essentially we are moving too fast, although commissions started telling us 2 years ago what we needed to do. We started having hearings a year ago with regard to what we needed to do, and we have had 18 hearings on homeland security in the Governmental Affairs Committee alone and dozens of other hearings in the House and the Senate. Is it really too rapid? Are we really moving too fast? Is that a criticism that is a just accusation to this body: That we are speeding this thing along, at long last, after all the information and hearings and GAO reports that you could stack as high as your head about the problems with Government and the way it needs to be reorganized and needs to be more efficient, that we have too much waste and fraud and abuse and mismanagement and overlap and duplication--for years and years, and nobody paid any attention to it? Now we are finally getting around to addressing some of this, and the issue before us is whether or not we need to wait at least another year before we even start doing those things. I suggest we do not. I suggest we need to get on about it. I suggest obviously there are going to be a lot of twists and turns in the road. We have seen amendments to the Department of Energy Act recently. We have seen DOD amendments in 1985, major amendments, Goldwater-Nickles. Major pieces of legislation creating major departments or consolidated departments always produce the need to revisit those issues at a subsequent time.

Mr. THOMPSON. I ask for an additional 1 minute.

Mr. THOMPSON. I suggest Congress is not going to lose its oversight. It has been under Congress's oversight, I might add, that this duplication, waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, and civil service system, which the Brookings Institution and representatives there say fails and underwhelms in every task it takes--it has been under our supervision that that has been created. With the appropriations process and the oversight process, if we do it correctly--not the way we have necessarily done it in the past; if we do it correctly--Congress will have a firm hand as we go down the road in the creation and the implementation of this new Department. It is not because we are moving too fast or because of any structural deficiencies that Congress has not had the proper hand. It is because we just simply have not done it. I suggest it is about time we did it. The creation of this Department is the first step in that regard.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the senior Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Strom Thurmond. Not only is Senator Thurmond the oldest Member ever to serve in the Senate, and the longest serving member, his entire life has been dedicated to service to his country. At the age of 21, in 1924, Senator Thurmond was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserves. At the age of 26, he was serving as the Superintendent of Education in Edgefield County, SC. From there he went on to serve as a State Senator, and then as Circuit Judge of South Carolina, a position he left to serve his country during World War II. For his military service, he earned a total of 18 different medals, decorations, and awards. He served as the Governor of South Carolina, and while serving, he ran for President as the head of the third party States Rights Democrats. He received 39 electoral votes, the third largest ever for an independent party candidate. Then in 1954, he was elected to the Senate as a write-in candidate, the first person ever to be elected to the Senate as a write-in candidate. Senator Thurmond's career as a member of the Senate has been not only long but distinguished. He served as either chairman or ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee for 12 years and he served as either chairman or ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee for 6 years. In fact, he has served on the Armed Services Committee for the last 43 years, where he has been a leader in promoting a strong national defense. So while we do well to recognize his extraordinary years of service to the Senate, it is worth remembering that Senator Thurmond is the perfect example of a true statesman a man who has dedicated his life to serving his country in any way possible, in all branches of government, in times of war and in times of peace. Senator Thurmond has set an example not only as a great Senator, but as a great citizen of this country, and it is for that reason that we are here to pay tribute, to demonstrate our respect, and to offer our thanks.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. May I ask how much time our side has remaining?

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield such time as the Senator may consume.

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour for debate, equally divided, on the cloture motion.

Mr. THOMPSON. And the vote to occur at the end of that hour.

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair. Madam President, about a year ago, we began hearings on the homeland security issue in the Governmental Affairs Committee. Other committees had hearings, but we had a series of hearings that lasted until recently. During that time, we reached bipartisan agreement on many important factors. We reached bipartisan agreement on the notion that we need to reorganize our Government to meet the new challenges our country faces. We live in a different world, a new world, a dangerous world, and we need to reorganize our governmental agencies to deal with that world. We have very broad bipartisan agreement on that. We also discovered in that time that we have some very important points of disagreement. I think it was the understanding of everyone concerned that after we addressed this in the committee, after we had a full discussion, a series of hearings, after we had an extensive markup and aired all of these similarities, these points of agreement, and points of disagreement, that we would be able to take that committee product, bring it to the floor, as Senator Lieberman has done, and that we would be discussing the merits of the points of agreement and the points of disagreement because we were about very important business of our country and the future safety of our country, with the full realization that we were doing something that had not been done for over half a century in this Government, in terms of the scope of the reorganization. I believe that was the understanding, that this would be the process, and that it was one of those rare times--all too rare around here--that we would come together on both sides of the aisle and address it in that way. It was not to be. We have spent the last 3 weeks in the afternoons supposedly on this bill and have accomplished very little. Of course, we had the September 11 anniversary in the middle of that time period, and we had a holiday in the midst of that time period. We also had a commemoration in New York, which many of us attended, in connection with the anniversary of September 11. But we still have had 3 weeks of afternoons for consideration of this bill, and we only really considered one of the substantive areas of disagreement. We have had a considerable period of time in the way legislative calendars go, but we have had very little time to consider these very important issues that we have been discussing in the press, in the media, on the floor, and in committee for now going on a year at least. Instead of coming to the floor and proceeding with those issues, we have had time taken up under the rules of the Senate, as Senators have a right to do, on matters that are peripheral to the important amendments and the issues with which we know we have to deal. Our side of the aisle has all this time been trying to get consideration of the issues that we know we have to consider. We are going to have to consider, one way or another, whether we want to diminish the President's national security authority. Could there be anything more important than that? We are going to have to decide whether or not we are going to give this new Secretary management flexibility to deal with the new problems in any Governmental Department nowadays, especially in this one. We are going to have to decide what kind of intelligence apparatus we are going to have within this new Department eventually. We are going to have to decide whether we are going to give the President reorganization authority. We are going to have to decide all these issues. All these issues have been begging for consideration all this time. This Senator has been trying to get them up for consideration. This Senator took 6 days trying to get a vote on the question of the nature of the White House person and whether or not he would be Senate confirmed. We finally, after 6 days, got a vote on that. It was a voice vote, and it was adopted. That is the only substantive amendment we have even had an opportunity to consider. With that background, and before considering any of these other issues at all, or having any discussion, any debate, the other side has filed cloture. After taking up all this time on all these other issues--days and hours of discussions on one thing or another--they have filed cloture. They have essentially filed cloture against themselves. I may not have been here long enough to fully understand all of the history and the way things work around here, but I hope that it is a rare occurrence for the majority party, or anyone else, to bring up their own bill, filibuster, and then file cloture against themselves in order to cut off the other side from offering amendments, which we know have to be considered. That is the situation we have. That is the bizarre circumstance in which we are today. That is not the proper purpose of a cloture motion. I ask my colleagues: Do they really believe there is any chance of getting a bill under these circumstances? This cloture motion is not about substance. It is not about moving the bill. Everybody knows if this cloture motion succeeds, there will be no bill this year. The President will veto this bill as sure as I am standing here. Without even having the opportunity to consider these issues concerning his own authority or the management flexibility or the reorganization or the intelligence component, or any of these other issues, they file cloture and deprive us of considering these issues? I am not sure anybody is going to argue the amendments would be germane after cloture. The effect is to cut us off. It is not about substance. It is not about moving the bill along. It is about appearances and it is about assessing blame. I guess there is quite a bit of embarrassment around here that we have spent 3 weeks and have essentially done nothing. Now apparently we want to give the appearance we are trying to move this along so we file cloture, plus putting us in the position on this side of the aisle of opposing cloture and make it look as if we are holding up the bill, when we are the ones who have been trying to get our amendments up and considered. I do not think the American people are going to buy that. When it comes to matters of this importance, where we could come together on a bipartisan basis and address these issues, I say to those Americans, better luck next time, because the matter has not gotten serious enough yet. We are only dealing with the security of this country, but we are going to engage in our same old games. I have a suggestion that instead of worrying about the appearances of moving this bill, let us actually move it. We should defeat this cloture motion and get on with those issues we are going to have to address sooner or later and give us a chance of having a bill. Therefore, I respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose cloture in this instance. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Connecticut. The Senator from Oklahoma is exactly right. I go back to what I said when I made my opening statement a few minutes ago. The bottom line is, the important issues of national security authority for the President, management authority for the new Secretary, what kind of intelligence component we are going to have in this bill, what kind of reorganization authority we are going to give the President--all that would be wiped out if this passed. None of that is going to be germane. Take the management part, for example. To be germane, it would have to be narrowing. If we struck the management structure from the current bill, that perhaps would be germane, but we don't do that. We suggest a different kind of management structure. I don't see how in the world that could be considered germane. What it would do would be to take that whole debate of management flexibility----

Mr. THOMPSON. And do away with it. I respectfully suggest that is not a good idea. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I am not sure exactly what is in the unanimous consent request. But I can possibly be a little bit more definitive after we have had a chance to discuss what is going on here.

Mr. THOMPSON. I will be happy to respond to the Senator a little later this afternoon.