Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. As ranking member on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, I appreciate your bringing this project to the committee's attention. I am confident that the Department of Homeland Security will give it fair consideration when reviewing grant applications in the coming years.

Mr. THOMPSON. Would Senator Durbin yield a minute of his time?

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, putting a significant piece of legislation like this bill together is a difficult and time-consuming task. Many Senators have played important roles in this legislation, but the contributions of our staff members have also been of great significance. Without the aid of our staff members, little would get done in this institution. I would like to take a moment to recognize the hard work and dedication of just a few of the staff members who contributed significantly to this legislation. For the Majority, I want to recognize the contributions of Chairman Lieberman's staff, especially his staff director, Joyce Rechtschaffen, and Laurie Rubenstein, Mike Alexander, Kiersten Coon, Holly Idelson, Kevin Landy, Larry Novey, and Susan Propper. Also, let me acknowledge the contributions of staff to the other members of the Governmental Affairs Committee and of Sarah Walter of Senator Breaux's staff, David Culver of Senator Ben Nelson's staff, and Alex Albert of Senator Miller's staff. IOn the Republican side, I must single out the work of Rohit Kumar of Senator Lott's Leadership staff. He has been the linchpin around whom everything got done. We would have no bill without his persistence, diligence, and intellect. Mike Solon of Senator Gramm's staff also placed a crucial role in developing the Gramm-Miller amendment on which much of the final legislation is based. David Morgenstern of Senator Chafee's staff was also helpful. Finally, let me recognize my own staff on the Governmental Affairs Committee, who provided me with outstanding support. The successful adoption of this legislation is due to their hard work and constant efforts. Almost my entire staff was involved in some way or another with this bill. I want to recognize the efforts of Richard Hertling, my staff director on the Governmental Affairs Committee, who led the effort, and Libby Wood Jarvis, my legislative director. Other members of my staff whose assistance I wish to recognize are Ellen Brown, Bill Outhier, Mason Alinger, Alison Bean, John Daggett, Johanna Hardy, Stephanie Henning, Morgan Muchnick, Jayson Roehl, Jana Sinclair, and Elizabeth VanDersarl, along with Allen Lomax, a fellow in my office from the General Accounting Office. Our staff members toil diligently and well, largely in anonymity. I think it appropriate on occasion to recognize their work publicly, so that Americans may share the knowledge of the members of this institution about how well served they are by our staff members. I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to take this brief time to recognize the efforts of some of the staff members responsible for this bill.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. As ranking member on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, I appreciate your bringing this project to the committee's attention. I am confident that the Department of Homeland Security will give it fair consideration when reviewing grant applications in the coming years.

Mr. THOMPSON. Would Senator Durbin yield a minute of his time?

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, putting a significant piece of legislation like this bill together is a difficult and time-consuming task. Many Senators have played important roles in this legislation, but the contributions of our staff members have also been of great significance. Without the aid of our staff members, little would get done in this institution. I would like to take a moment to recognize the hard work and dedication of just a few of the staff members who contributed significantly to this legislation. For the Majority, I want to recognize the contributions of Chairman Lieberman's staff, especially his staff director, Joyce Rechtschaffen, and Laurie Rubenstein, Mike Alexander, Kiersten Coon, Holly Idelson, Kevin Landy, Larry Novey, and Susan Propper. Also, let me acknowledge the contributions of staff to the other members of the Governmental Affairs Committee and of Sarah Walter of Senator Breaux's staff, David Culver of Senator Ben Nelson's staff, and Alex Albert of Senator Miller's staff. IOn the Republican side, I must single out the work of Rohit Kumar of Senator Lott's Leadership staff. He has been the linchpin around whom everything got done. We would have no bill without his persistence, diligence, and intellect. Mike Solon of Senator Gramm's staff also placed a crucial role in developing the Gramm-Miller amendment on which much of the final legislation is based. David Morgenstern of Senator Chafee's staff was also helpful. Finally, let me recognize my own staff on the Governmental Affairs Committee, who provided me with outstanding support. The successful adoption of this legislation is due to their hard work and constant efforts. Almost my entire staff was involved in some way or another with this bill. I want to recognize the efforts of Richard Hertling, my staff director on the Governmental Affairs Committee, who led the effort, and Libby Wood Jarvis, my legislative director. Other members of my staff whose assistance I wish to recognize are Ellen Brown, Bill Outhier, Mason Alinger, Alison Bean, John Daggett, Johanna Hardy, Stephanie Henning, Morgan Muchnick, Jayson Roehl, Jana Sinclair, and Elizabeth VanDersarl, along with Allen Lomax, a fellow in my office from the General Accounting Office. Our staff members toil diligently and well, largely in anonymity. I think it appropriate on occasion to recognize their work publicly, so that Americans may share the knowledge of the members of this institution about how well served they are by our staff members. I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to take this brief time to recognize the efforts of some of the staff members responsible for this bill.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a U.S. Air Force officer, Colonel Joseph M. Willging. Colonel Willging currently serves as the Chief of the Environmental Law Division of the Judge Advocate General's Department in Arlington, Virginia. He will retire on May 1, 2003 from the Air Force after 25 years of service. Today, it is my privilege to recognize some of Colonel Willging's accomplishments, and to commend his service to the Air Force and our nation. Colonel Willging was born in Minneapolis, MN, and entered the Air Force through the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps program. His early assignments included George Air Force Base, California, Royal Air Force Bentwaters Air Base, United Kingdom, Grand Forks Air Force Base, ND, and Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. He later served as the Staff Judge Advocate for Castle Air Force Base, California, Chief of the Environmental Law Division, Headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, and the Deputy Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon before arriving in 2000 in Arlington, VA for his current assignment. Throughout his career, Colonel Willging has received numerous military decorations including the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal with four oak-leaf clusters, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, the Air Force Commendations Medal, the Joint Service Achievement Medal, and the Southwest Asia Service Medal. Additionally, he holds a law degree from the William Mitchell College of Law in Saint Paul and a Master of Laws in Environmental Law from George Washington University. He is also a graduate of Air Command and Staff College, and Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, and earned the degree of Master of Science from the National War College, Fort McNair, Washington, DC. Colonel Willging is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Minnesota. As Chief of the Environmental Law Division of the United States Air Force Judge Advocate General's Department, Colonel Willging has led an impressive organization of military and civilian lawyers, paralegals, and support personnel. Colonel Willging's leadership, judgment, and unwavering devotion to duty were instrumental in the successful resolution of numerous difficult issues facing the Air Force. At the same time, he was a key and trusted advisor to the Air Force engineering community, which relied heavily on his sound, timely, and cogent advice in resolving a host of complex issues. I am pleased to have this opportunity to commend Colonel Willging for his many years of selfless service to the United States of America.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend and distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Texas, Senator Phil Gramm. Senator Gramm was first elected to public office in 1978. He served in the U.S. House of Representatives as a Democrat for 4 years. After becoming disenchanted with the Democratic party, he resigned his seat in January of 1983 and ran again in a special election as a Republican. He won back his seat and earned a new found respect for the honorable way in which he changed parties. In 1984, Senator Gramm was elected to the United States Senate. An economist by training, Senator Gramm has spent his entire public career fighting for the principles of freedom, particularly economic freedom, individual choice and limited government. We all know well of his ``Dickey Flatt'' test. Dickey Flatt is a small businessman in Texas who has served as Senator Gramm's bell-weather on the Federal Government's tax and regulatory policies. It is for the Dickey Flatts of this country that Senator Gramm has fought to cut Federal tax rates, repeal the death tax and reduce the government's regulatory burden on small businesses. We also have heard often of Senator Gramm's ``momma.'' It is for her and the other senior citizens of our country that Senator Gramm has worked hard to strengthen and modernize the Medicare and Social Security programs. Perhaps Senator Gramm's most important legislative accomplishments are the 1981 ``Gramm-Latta'' tax cut, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget bill and the Gramm- Leach-Bliley Financial Services Act. Equally as important as the legislation he has supported is the legislation that Senator Gramm has chosen to fight over the years. If a bill did not pass the Dickey Flatt test, you could be assured that Senator Gramm would oppose it. He is probably most famous for successfully leading the opposition in 1994 to then-President Clinton's proposal for a Federal takeover of the Nation's health care system. I have had the privilege of serving with the Senator from Texas on the Senate Finance Committee for the past 4 years. I have learned much from him and enjoyed listening to him debate the important issues before the Committee. Senator Gramm has a plain-spoken, common sense way of explaining issues that will be sorely missed in this body. Senator Gramm has served his State of Texas and this country with great distinction. He is a skilled debater and legislator, who has held true to his conservative principles over the years. I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to work with him during my tenure in the Senate, and to call him my friend. I wish him and his lovely wife Wendy the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I am very pleased that the Senate is taking up the nomination of judge Thomas Phillips, who is the President's nominee to fill a vacancy on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Judge Phillips was born and raised in Scott County, TN, the home county of our former colleague, Senator Howard Baker. His academic record is superb. A Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Berea College in Kentucky, he went on to attend Vanderbilt Law School, my own alma mater, on a full academic scholarship. While at Vanderbilt, he was an editor of the Law Review and received the Dean's Award for Best Senior Dissertation. Upon finishing law school, Judge Phillips joined the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps, which awarded him its Outstanding Appellate Advocacy Award and the Army Commendation Medal in 1973. While serving in the Army, Judge Phillips also received a master of laws degree from George Washington University Law School here in Washington. In 1973, Judge Phillips returned to Tennessee and entered the private practice of law. Public service called him back, however, and in 1976, Judge Phillips was elected as County Attorney for Scott County. Between 1976 and 1991, Judge Phillips continued to serve as Scott County Attorney, being re-elected four times, while continuing to engage in private law practice with his own firm in his home town, Oneida. During this period, he tried hundreds of cases. In 1991, Judge Phillips was appointed by the judges of the Eastern District of Tennessee to serve as a Magistrate Judge in Knoxville, the position he continues to hold. During the time he has served as Magistrate Judge, he has earned the respect of all who have appeared before him for his demeanor, courtesy, and intellect. During the rigorous screening process that Senator Frist and I undertook to review the records of interested candidates for this judgeship, we heard uniformly and highly favorable comments about Judge Phillips. I think the record before the committee demonstrates his outstanding qualifications. I cite just one example. In over 11 years on the bench, out of thousands of decisions and recommendations, Judge Phillips has been reversed on just two occasions, and on only one occasion has a District Judge rejected his recommendations. Judge Phillips has excelled not only in his professional career, but in his commitment to his community as well. He has promoted legal education by serving as a member of the Inns of Court and by teaching at the University of Tennessee Law School. He is an Elder of the Huntsville Presbyterian Church, a member of the American Legion, and a leader of the American, Tennessee, Scott County, and Knoxville Bar Associations. In private practice, Judge Phillips provided extensive pro bono services and served on the boards of Scott County Hospital and Opportunities for the Handicapped. I would be remiss if I failed to note the importance of moving forward with this nomination. Traditionally, two district judges sit in Knoxville, Tennessee's third largest city. Late last year and early this year, Judge Jordan and Judge Jarvis respectively assumed senior status, leaving the district court in Knoxville with no active judges. I want to express my thanks and appreciation to both senior judges for the service they rendered for many years on the Federal bench in Knoxville. I am confident that there is no one better qualified to fill the large hold left by Judge Jordan and Judge Jarvis than Judge Phillips. I am pleased to endorse Judge Phillips and urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMPSON. I would have to object.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's withdrawal of his amendment. As he knows, I agree with what he is trying to do with this amendment. I was a cosponsor of it when he offered it in the Governmental Affairs Committee. I agreed to cosponsor his amendment in committee because the problem of interoperability of Government information systems is a real problem and one we have tried to address for years. I mentioned the IRS a while ago as being a very good example of that. Congress passed the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 in response to concerns about how the Federal Government was managing and acquiring information technology. Clinger-Cohen built on the information management requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, under both of these laws, is charged with the responsibility of overseeing and evaluating agencywide information technology management and acquisition. It is certainly consistent with OMB's own implementing guidance to expect that the Director will develop, in consultation with the new Secretary of Homeland Security, a comprehensive enterprise architecture plan for information systems, including communications systems to achieve interoperability. I agree with Senator Durbin that OMB should develop and meet time lines to implement this plan. Senator Durbin's amendment would have required a particular person to be designated to be responsible for this effort. Certainly with all those people they have at OMB, I am sure they have someone with the expertise to be responsible for the success of this effort. I do know this is something that the folks at OMB are concerned about, and I have full faith that they will do the right thing about it. I thank Senator Durbin for his leadership on this important issue. I am confident the administration hears this and will be responsive on this issue. On a couple of other issues having to do with our amendment that is under consideration today, as we attempt to wrap up the homeland security bill, there are provisions here dealing with the Department of Energy National Laboratories on which I would like to comment for a moment. I strongly believe the new Department of Homeland Security, and particularly the Science and Technology Directorate, can benefit greatly from the cutting edge research and development being performed at our National Laboratories in this country--crown jewels of this Nation--much of which is directly related to homeland security. Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, and I have worked hard to craft language that will allow the new Department of Homeland Security to take advantage of the expertise that is resonant at our National Laboratories in order to strengthen homeland security. I must say, however, I am disappointed that the compromise bill included language allowing the new Department to select a so-called ``headquarters laboratory'' from the National Laboratory system to serve as the focus for homeland security R&D. I believe all the National Laboratories have something to offer this new Department and that the DHS should be able to directly access whichever laboratory it believes can best serve a given need. There should be a level playing field in this regard. For example, if the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee--just to pick a laboratory at random--has developed a technology that would help to strengthen our homeland security, or is conducting research in an area of particular interest in the new Department, the Secretary should be able to go to this laboratory directly and take advantage of that. The Senate bills--the Gramm-Miller bill and Lieberman bill--set up a mechanism to allow this type of interaction. The compromise includes many of our principles in these bills but doesn't place the same emphasis on this level playing field. I will note that the language in the compromise is permissive; that is, it allows the new Department to select a headquarters laboratory but doesn't require it to do so. I encourage the new Secretary, whoever he or she may be, not to do so. I hope the new Department will look at all of the National Laboratories for assistance and fully utilize the tremendous capabilities they have to help strengthen our homeland security. On the issue of risk sharing and indemnification, which has been referred to earlier, I am disappointed the bill doesn't include language that would give the President the ability to exercise existing discretionary authority to indemnify contractors and subcontractors for Federal agencies' procurement of antiterrorism technologies and services. I had hoped this bill would clarify that the President, if he chooses, may use the indemnification authority of current law to provide companies supplying goods and services to the Government some certainty about the risk involved when developing cutting edge counterterrorism tools. The law now covers wartime products and services--certain products and services having to do with wartime, and they are defined in the law and in the bill. But there are other items, such as mail sorters, and things of that nature, that may not fit into the same category I think ought to be covered, too. Instead of the indemnification provisions included in the Gramm-Miller amendment, this bill includes some limited tort reform provisions to protect the manufacturers and sellers of antiterrorism technologies that satisfy certain requirements. Under the principles of federalism on which our country is based, tort laws are traditionally reserved to the authority of several States. I have never been one, just because I liked a certain policy, to federalize something that had been the province of the States for 200 years, simply because I wanted to conform it to my idea of national policy. That is inconsistent with our position on federalism. There comes a point on balance where the need for the development and deployment of effective antiterrorism technologies throughout the Nation supports the creation of national or Federal standards, upon the determination by the Secretary, of the technology if it meets the statutory criteria. As time goes on, things change, certain things become national issues, certain things become matters of concern of even national security. We are living in a different world, and I think we must respond to that. We make some progress toward doing that, without wholesale so-called reform that would totally federalize the areas that have been under the province of States since the creation of our Government. Corporate inversion is another area that is dealt with in this bill. I am disappointed that the bill includes language to prohibit the Secretary from entering into contracts with U.S. firms that have reincorporated outside the U.S. through a series of transactions, commonly referred to as inversion. It is a very popular idea to punish folks who go outside and incorporate. We would do a whole lot better if we concentrated on improving the tax that caused it to happen. It is going to be part of this bill, and I wish it was not. The Committee on Governmental Affairs, which has jurisdiction over Federal procurement policy, has not held a single hearing to consider this issue and its impact on the procurement process. There are consequences to what we do around here. I think we will discover there are some consequences to this--maybe unintended--and they will be addressed later. So be it. One result of the language would be--get this--to allow foreign companies that have always been foreign based to bid on Department of Homeland Security contracts, but it would preclude foreign companies headquartered in the U.S. before the Department was created from bidding on U.S. Department of Homeland Security contracts, even if the work would be performed in the U.S. by American workers. Maybe somebody will step up and tell me how that makes sense. It is in there, and it is not nearly as important an area as these other very beneficial sections of this bill. In the interest of full disclosure, as I go through these provisions, I have to state my honest beliefs about them. This provision is not one of our finer moments in the bill. In conclusion, I think we have come a long way since the Governmental Affairs Committee, under Senator Lieberman's leadership, first considered legislation to create a Department of Homeland Security back in June. I look forward to the Senate's final consideration in the next few hours, days, or whatever, of this compromise amendment that I have introduced on behalf of Senators Gramm, Miller, and myself. I do not believe we will necessarily get everything right the first time around. But it is important that we come to agreement as soon as possible. I think this bill does that and, for that, I am happy. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, as I understand it, my colleague from Illinois has withdrawn his amendment. Amendment No. 4906 Withdrawn

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I thank Senator Gramm of Texas for his strong leadership on this issue. He is one of the most eloquent, logical, and persuasive Senators who has ever served in the Senate, I am sure of that. The Senate is going to miss his strong voice. He is fierce in battle and he is magnanimous in victory. I am proud he is my friend, and I thank him for his comments. It does look as if we are at a point where we can come together on a homeland security bill. I hope it is not done in a way that is a grudging concession for some, that they believe it is a bad bill but must on balance vote for it. I hope the employees who are going to be in this Homeland Security Department do not feel they are going to be taken advantage of or this bill in some way strips them of basic rights. Those sorts of things have been alluded to, but they are simply not accurate. This bill preserves the antidiscrimination provisions and protections of title V--for example, discrimination based on color, race, religion, sex, age, handicap, marital status, or political affiliation; those protections are preserved. Those were never at issue. Protection from political coercion, a basic right that is set forth in title V, is preserved. Fair competition for employment is preserved, protection from nepotism whistleblower protection is preserved. Those rights are not trampled upon in any way. Workers are not being deprived of those rights. Veterans preference provisions are preserved. Equal pay for equal work provisions are preserved. I hope we do not go down this road together, but still separate, in our feeling for the need for this bill because we feel in some way we can still draw lines between management and workers and play on any hostility or misunderstanding that might be out there. It is not based upon reality. It is based upon a recognition that our Government is simply not working very well in some areas, in some basic provisions. Many of our departments have troubles. Senator Durbin, with whom I will engage in a colloquy shortly concerning some technology provisions, is absolutely right when he talks about the problems our Government has with regard to getting our computers to talk to each other. This is simply another example of our Government not working very well. We have spent billions of dollars in the IRS trying to get the computers to talk to each other, to upgrade them and incorporate technology capabilities that private industry has employed for a long time. We had great difficulty in doing that. That is one small area of the problem. The other side of that problem coin has to do with personnel. When the IRS was in such bad shape, we gave them additional flexibility to pay people more, to go outside the personnel rules and pay people more and give them more flexibility as to who they could hire. That is the sort of thing you do to solve the problem. Do not just identify the problem; try to solve the problem. In department after department, agency after agency, we have looked at the problems our Government has as it grows, as the bureaucracy grows, and we get bogged down and cannot hire the people we need and we cannot fire the people we do not need. We get bogged down in endless disputes over minute matters such as smoking facilities and the color of the carpets in offices and things of that nature. We have given flexibilities to get around those things. That is what we are doing in this bill. It is not a heavy-handed cram down that violates people's rights. It is simply a response to the fact that this Nation is in a different era now. We recognize the difference we are in, the different threat this Nation faces, one that it has never faced before. We are not fearful of vast armies and tanks and battalions rushing across Europe anymore and threatening our friends and our troops in that part of the world. It is much more insidious and much more dangerous than that, where a handful of people with modern technology can destroy the lives of thousands of people. We are just in the baby steps phase of even beginning to deal with that. That is what the homeland security bill is about. It is taking the first baby step to organize ourselves to deal with that. We have a big battleship of a government and we are trying to turn it around a little bit. Oftentimes it is wasteful, inefficient. As Senator Durbin points out, the computers cannot talk to each other. We have all the things that make it difficult to face the high-tech threats we are facing. That is what homeland security is all about. We simply cannot exist in this environment in the world when, while we are the world's superpower, we are also the world's supertarget. We cannot exist the same way we have in times past, being willing to pay a few billion here and a few billion there because of waste and inefficiency in government, knowing things may not work--so be it--and we simply add another bureaucracy on top of that, have another election, and spend a few more billion dollars and absorb it because of our economic strength. We cannot do that anymore. We have to do things differently. It goes back to equipment, computers, technology, and personnel and the flexibility to use and interchange those things to meet the modern conditions we are facing. We cannot go along anymore with a system that takes 6 months to hire someone and 18 months to fire someone. That does not work. Where, if you want to transfer someone to the front and get your best people in certain crucial places you have endless appeal rights that take years to resolve. We cannot do that anymore. It is not a matter of trying to take advantage of someone, it is a matter of trying to protect this country. That is what this is all about. I hope this is not viewed as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition that has not been compromised. Some have said this is not a compromise, this is an agreement--meaning, apparently, the President was not willing to bend; or our side was not willing to compromise in any way, but we did agree to disagree and we are going to vote for the bill. That is the way I interpret that. It should not be that way. I don't think that is a justifiable response to the situation. Going back to the beginning of this legislation, we must go back to Senator Lieberman. Senator Lieberman began this process. He should get great credit for that. He and a few others heightened our awareness to the need to take a different look. It was in the Governmental Affairs Committee, the committee that deals with Government organizations and reorganizations. Goodness knows, many Members have known the whole Government has needed a reorganization for many years. He said we should look at a reorganization with regard to the parts of Government regarding homeland security. We did not agree on exactly how to do that. We had several hearings. We had committee consideration. I offered several amendments as ranking member on the Governmental Affairs Committee. Some of the amendments simply were trying to incorporate current law into the Homeland Security Department and were voted down pretty much along partisan lines. We tried to negotiate the personnel flexibility issue at that point. We did not meet with any success at that point in trying to negotiate any of those things out. Senator Lieberman had the votes. He passed the bill. He is to be commended for that. We might not be here today if it was not for him. The fact is, there was disagreement and discussion and his side prevailed along party lines on just about every vote when we tried to get some authority for the President that other Presidents had. The answer was no. We tried to get personnel flexibility; some of the unions opposed that, but I think the people support it. The answer was no, all along the line. This has not been a totally one-sided proposition from our standpoint. I voted against the proposal in committee at that time. It was before a national strategy had been submitted by the President. I thought the President ought to have an opportunity, at a minimum, to analyze the nature of the problem and come forth with a comprehensive national strategy. That is what happened. This bill, today, not only is not what Senator Lieberman proposed, it is not what the President originally proposed, either. The President had more flexibility in his original proposal than is found in this amendment. The original bill did not have the various provisions in title V, nonwaivables. I do not think there was an intention to make them expendable at all, the various protections were not in the bill, but we wound up putting those in the bill. The President wanted appropriations transfer authority, up to 5 percent of appropriated funds. The President did not get that. That is not in this bill. When it came down, Senator Gramm and Senator Zell Miller, the two Senators who made the major proposal and response to the Lieberman bill, and whose work was so effective and we certainly would not be here today without their work, they suggested 2 percent, the President be given appropriations transfer authority up to 2 percent. We are going to have to create a new Department. We have to have some flexibility, some money to make these changes up to this amount. That is not in the bill either. An indemnification provision that was in Gramm-Miller, that is not in this bill either. So there are things that each side wanted that are not in this bill. It has been compromised and discussed all along the way. It is true that somewhere along the line someone has to prevail on certain key issues. It is true that the President stood pat, pretty much, on his national security authority and took the position from day 1, and maintained that position throughout, that he simply was not going to relinquish any authority that all other Presidents had since the time, really, of John F. Kennedy, when there was an Executive order that gave him that authority, and since the time of Jimmy Carter, that there has been a statute that gave them that authority. Democrat and Republican Presidents both exercised that authority. It passes down to George W. Bush, and the proposal on the other side was that there be new hurdles the President might have to go jump over before he could exercise that authority. It made no sense to us or to the President that in a time of war we would be giving the President additional hurdles and roadblocks in order to, on occasion, exercise his national security authority in certain areas. He maintained that provision. He prevailed on that position. That is the position that is in this bill, and rightfully so. The same thing is true with respect to personnel flexibility. I will discuss that perhaps in some detail. We have had a lot of discussion about this agreement or compromise, or whatever you would call it, that we introduced yesterday, but we really have not got ten into the details of what is in it to any great extent. If anyone wants to come down and speak on this bill, I will be glad to let them do so. But until that time, I will just go over a few of the provisions that are in this amendment that we filed. With regard to the issue of personnel flexibility, as we know, the bill to create a Department of Homeland Security consolidates 22 Federal agencies comprising 170,000 employees, 17 different unions, 77 existing collective bargaining agreements, 7 payroll systems, 80 different personnel management systems. It is a monumental job under any circumstances--a monumental job. Reorganizing an agency with all the vested interests and positions that involves is a big job. This is a monumental job. It is imperative that some sort of procedure is put in place to enable the Secretary to create one unified Department to prevent terrorist attacks and protect our homeland. We all agree that flexibility is needed. We have not been able to come to agreement, up until now, as to how much flexibility is required--flexibility meaning the guy who is going to run the agency, have to take the responsibility, have the accountability but be given the tools to get the job done with. That is a big job--the most important job, probably, in Government, outside the Presidency itself, in light of the world in which we live. The idea of providing agencies with some increased flexibility with regard to personnel management is not revolutionary. Almost half of all Federal executive branch employees already work in agencies with human resource management programs that operate, in whole or in part, outside the framework of Federal employees laws that are in title V. I think we need to realize on the one hand that employees probably should not have an equal seat at the table with managers when it comes to running a Department; on the other hand, we need to emphasize in the law that some employee rights are basic they are basic and should not be subject to the whim of a manager. An employee is entitled to appeal rights. We can discuss whether it ought to take 5 years to get something resolved or whether we ought to have five different levels of appeal. I think that is ridiculous in the day and age we live in now. We can do better than that but still keep those appeal rights. The manager should not be the judge and jury and executioner but should have the right to manage and then some appeal rights if he oversteps his authority. This new bill sets up a consultation process for the creation of a human resources management system. It sets four steps management must take in order to create the new system. There is detailed language that provides for a preimplementation congressional notification, consultation, and mediation process the Department must go through, involving the management and employees of the Department, the Office of Personnel Management, Congress, Federal employee unions, and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. So there is quite an elaborate process of consultation and even mediation where these views have an opportunity to be aired. It is not all one sided. Sometimes reasonable people can actually sit down and modify their views when they have a chance to talk. It is not as if all the employees are going to look at it the same way. If I were a good employee, the way most of the employees are, and I were offered the opportunity of my management, my Department, having some more flexibility so that I could move more toward the things I am interested in and good at, that had a chance of higher pay and more recognition and a more significant mission, such as homeland security, but in exchange I had to agree that if I did something that caused disciplinary action I would only have, let's say, three levels of appeal instead of five, I think I would take that deal. I think most employees would take that deal. In the first place, the overwhelming number of employees do not even get in that position because they are good employees. This is not something about which most employees are going to be concerned. I think it is going to be something most employees will embrace, if some of their leadership will be honest with them about what this is all about. We are not talking about lower pay. We are talking about potentially higher pay. We cannot get good technicians in the modern marketplace to work for the Government at the salaries we are paying now. We are going to have to do better. There is good news in this bill. It is not an onerous thing, looking for a way to fire a bunch of people. That would never work. Natural attrition is going to take a tremendous toll on Federal employees anyway. We are going to be looking for good people. But a manager simply has to have the right in any kind of organization, especially one this big, especially one this complex, especially one that has this troublesome track record that so many of our Departments and Agencies already have--a manager must have some flexibility. We cannot incorporate the mess we have created in so many areas of Government into homeland security. We have a golden opportunity to take the first steps toward doing something different, doing something right, something that can be a template, an example for other parts of government. Also in this amendment is a provision concerning reorganization authority. It is important for Congress to consider granting the Secretary the ability to make programmatic reorganizations within the Department. It will take many years for the Department to get up and running efficiently. There may be many instances, for example, in which the various functions within the Department can be consolidated in order to eliminate overlap and duplication. If you listen to GAO, and you ever read any of those reports--and you could fill this room to the ceiling with GAO reports talking about inefficiency, waste, fraud, abuse, overlap and duplication, year after year, Department after Department after Department. But in order to deal with this, a manager ought to have a right to do some consolidation. While waiting for Congress, both Houses, with its 88 committees and subcommittees of jurisdiction, to hold hearings, introduce legislation, consider their proposal in subcommittee and committee, debate on the issue, vote, and then hold a conference on the legislation, it is important the Secretary be able to implement these changes in a timely manner. Gramm-Miller was somewhat broader. The Secretary could go outside the agency, reporting to Congress. This does not allow going outside an agency. But it does not require a report to Congress. So there is an adjustment there. There is a compromise there. There is another indication that this is not a cram-down. This is the product of serious discussions back and forth, just as was Gramm-Miller. That whole process was a product of Senator Gramm and Senator Miller and others of us sitting down across tables and working out minute details. That work product, which is the basis of where we are today, was moved further toward the positions of some of our other colleagues in order to get something that people not only could grudgingly support but something they really thought was a good product and still got the job done. You can always compromise and get an agreement just about on anything if it is meaningless enough and inconsequential enough. That is not the only key--getting a deal. The key is to get a deal that will get the job done and people can feel good about. The bill before us today would enable the Secretary to initiate an internal reorganization that would reallocate functions among the offices of the Department so long as the Secretary submits a comprehensive reorganization plan to Congress. I think this language goes a long way toward giving the Secretary the flexibility needed to ensure the long-term viability of this new Department. Procurement flexibility is another important area. It is important throughout Government. It is especially important here. All of these problems need to be looked at with a magnifying glass. All these problems we see in these other areas--all of these, well, we need to do better here or there--become really magnified when you realize a handful of people with modern technology can murder tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people when you consider the vast ranging infrastructure that we have which is 90 to 95 percent in private hands. It is not something the Government can turn a switch and change overnight. When you consider that, all of these difficulties that we have had become greatly magnified. Procurement is another issue that, for many years, we have accepted that the Federal Government has paid a premium, both in dollars and in time spent for goods and services it buys solely because of the unique requirements it places on contractors. While the Federal procurement system has been streamlined and simplified over the last several years, much redtape and barriers still exist. This is due in part to trying to maintain the proper balance between an efficient procurement system and accountability when spending taxpayer dollars. Last year, Congress provided the Defense Department with the authority to quickly and efficiently purchase the most high-tech and sophisticated products and services in support of the warfighter. I am pleased that the present bill includes provisions giving the Department of Homeland Security similar authority in its efforts to defend against terrorism and provide flexibility to buy technologies or products that are cutting edge but that may not have made it through the commercial marketplace yet. Further, the bill also includes language that gives similar flexibilities to Federal agencies Governmentwide to support antiterrorism efforts and to defend against biological, chemical, radiological, or other technology attacks. Although these Governmentwide flexibilities are more limited than those provided for in the new Department, all agencies of Government will be able to better avail themselves of the most sophisticated technologies in order to successfully fight against terrorism--one of the things Senator Durbin was talking about just a while ago. The bill before us today includes a provision that requires the Secretary to develop and submit to Congress a plan for consolidating and coallocating the more than 1,000 field offices that will fall under the new Department's jurisdiction. Previous versions of the legislation required the Secretary to come back to Congress to ask permission to change these field offices. The language in this bill is more proactive, requiring the Secretary to take the initiative to come up with a way to unify the Department's front line of defense. As to congressional oversight structure, we know what the situation is there. We have to have a sense of the Senate. Congress is beginning to acknowledge the obvious. As I mentioned before, the Department of Homeland Security will have 88 committees and subcommittees claiming jurisdiction over various aspects of this Department. It is bad enough for departments that must answer to two or three different committees. I can't imagine how much energy will have to be focused on reporting to Congress rather than to the Department. That oversight responsibility is important. It is just not the amount; it is the quality of it. There is a provision in this bill for a sense of Congress rather than an actual requirement for Congress to revise its committee structure. That at least is a step in the right direction and an acknowledgment that Congress really should address the question of revising its committee structure and doing something about the fact that there are 88 committees and subcommittees that deal with this matter. That is not going to work. I think Congress would acknowledge that. Another issue that is important to highlight is the compromise proposal for securing our Nation's borders. There has been little dispute that the Immigration and Naturalization Service needs much improvement. On the one hand, there have been problems with INS enforcement functions and ensuring that those who may want to enter the United States to do us harm are not admitted. On the other hand, the INS has experienced big problems in backlogs in the processing of applications for visas and other immigration benefits for those qualified aliens who lawfully want to enter the country. So we have a law enforcement function and a services function. This bill both strengthens the INS functions and promotes a stronger border. It places all of the INS enforcement functions, including Border Patrol inspections, within the Border and Transportation Security Director. This will allow the Border Under Secretary to effectively coordinate immigration efforts at the border with Customs and the Transportation Security Administration allowing the Department to create a seamless border. In addition, it establishes a bureau of citizenship and immigration services which will report directly to the Deputy Secretary. The services part is not getting lost in the shuffle. It is important and will report directly to the Deputy Secretary. This bureau will focus on immigration service, including the processing of visas and naturalization applications and administering other immigration benefits. The separating and restructuring of the immigration enforcement and service functions within this new Department will help establish the framework for increased security at our borders, as well as improve services for lawful immigrants. I picked up the New York Times this morning, and I read a story that starts out as follows: ``The Immigration and Naturalization Service has begun an internal review to determine how a man suspected of having ties to the Islamic radical group Hezbullah was able to become a naturalized United States citizen,'' several agency officials said yesterday. There is story after story after story. We must--must--do better, and hopefully this will be a significant step in the right direction. During my tenure on the Governmental Affairs Committee, I spent a lot of time on legislation and oversight to protect the security of Federal computers and information systems. Senator Lieberman and I worked very closely together in this regard for some years. I am pleased that this bill includes the Federal Information Security Management Act which will require Federal agencies to utilize information security best practices to ensure the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of Federal information systems. This language builds on and makes permanent the foundation laid by the Government Information Security Reform Act, a relatively new law which Senator Lieberman and I sponsored, which requires every Federal agency to develop and implement security policies that include risk assessments, risk-based policies, security awareness training, and periodic reviews. Now, that sounds like a big mouthful that is hard to understand, but what it means is our computers are very vulnerable to cyber-attack. As a part of our infrastructure, it is very vulnerable. A lot of people think the next big attack, if we ever have one in this country, will be preceded by this kind of cyber-attack. We must do more and do better in that regard. At a time when uncertainty threatens confidence in our Nation's preparedness, the Federal Government must make information security a priority. The language in this bill is vitally important to accomplish this objective. Law enforcement authority for inspectors general may seem like a small item, but it is an important item, and it is a part of an even more important thing; that is, the homeland security bill itself. I am pleased this bill includes a provision, which again Senator Lieberman and I sponsored, to codify law enforcement authority for certain Presidentially appointed inspectors general. In the wake of September 11, the FBI is diverting resources and agents to fight against terrorism like we have never seen before. As a result, the Bureau will rely even more heavily on the work of inspectors general to investigate fraud and other crimes in the Federal Government. This provision will ensure that the IGs have the tools they will need to carry out these investigations. Now, this is not exactly the bill I would have drafted myself. I think almost anybody who speaks on behalf of it would say that. Some would say that is an earmark of a good bill. Some would say that is an earmark not of something that is being forced down folks' throats but is the earmark of something that has been compromised and worked out. The intelligence issue is an extremely important one. How do we handle the intelligence issue with regard to the Department of Homeland Security? It is a big issue. It is a big problem. Throughout this process, there have been a couple of different approaches to the creation of an intelligence directorate for the new Department. Some have sought to create a superintelligence agency that could direct other agencies that would be responsible for connecting the counterterrorism dots. It is a complicated problem. We talk about connecting the dots. If the dots had been connected and had been there on the board for one person to connect, we would have avoided 9/11. The problem with that is these dots were within a sea of dots. For every dot we now know was significant, there were scores of dots right around it that looked the same that we now know apparently were not significant. So it is a big problem, much bigger than just putting somebody in charge of dot connecting. Others, like myself, have argued for a structure much more modest that would be responsible for conducting threat and risk analysis and producing vulnerability assessments; in other words, look at our infrastructure. We have problems enough just assessing the vulnerability of our farflung infrastructure in this country, and then working with intelligence to figure out how best to protect it. The emphasis of this structure would be on a critical infrastructure. One of my chief concerns, which I have repeatedly expressed in the Governmental Affairs Committee and on this floor, is that we not act too broadly in regard to creating this intelligence directorate. It is imperative we do not lull Members into believing we have taken comprehensive reform of our intelligence community when so much, in my opinion, remains to be done in that regard. But, for the most part, I am satisfied with the intelligence provisions in the compromise legislation that is before us. These provisions combine the directorates for information analysis and critical infrastructure, as requested by the President. It would be responsible for analyzing terrorism threat information, assessing the vulnerabilities of the American homeland, and producing risk assessments, something not being done anywhere else in the Federal Government. These assessments tell us of the likelihood that a target will be attacked and will help us best allocate our limited resources. I believe this is the proper emphasis for this directorate. Still, this bill goes further than I would prefer in the amount of information that is provided to the new Department. Specifically, the access-to-information provisions provided in this new directorate mean they will receive all information on terrorist threats, even if the provider of the information considers such information to be highly sensitive or not particularly useful or raw material. The only way to avoid this requirement is for the provider to convince the President the information should not be shared. If the President says this information is not to be shared, it will not be shared. So I would prefer the burden be on the recipient to show a need for this information rather than the burden being on the President to stop it, but it is not a major consideration. The fact of the matter is, we are going to try this out for a while to see what is best. We are not going to have it right in a lot of these areas, no matter which direction we take. But we will only learn how we can improve by getting started. That is why this bill right now is so important. We need to get started and see how it works. Even our Constitution, as the Framers of our Constitution knew, is not a perfect document in that it would be exactly the way we would want it for 200 years without any changes. We saw some ways we could improve it. And that will not be any different with this legislation. This provision will radically alter the current relationship between consumers and providers of intelligence information. I certainly agree with those who suggest the traditional means of sharing intelligence information with the community must be revamped. But I think it should be done next year as a part of a larger look at our intelligence community. I am concerned. The intelligence community is no different than the rest of our Government in that you live and you learn and you adjust. And we are undergoing a big adjustment now because of the change in the nature of the primary threats to this country, and the reprioritizing that is going on, and the fact that for well over a decade we saw a decline in emphasis of some of the things we know are very important now, such as human intelligence, such as signals, intelligence capabilities, and still have the same operation. There is much more out there for that same operation to collect and deal with. They are swamped with information, and there are big adjustments to make. I admire the men and women who are valiantly trying to deal with it, but they have not dealt with it well in some respects. We simply have to let the chips fall where they may after we have done a thorough analysis of what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong, and to what extent we need to reorganize, to what extent leadership has to be different. How do we get the good people we need? How do we keep them motivated? What should Congress do to give them political support? Congress is great about seeing the horse running out of the barn and down the road and pointing out that the horse is out of the barn. We need to see how we can do a little bit better in terms of helping to resolve the problem instead of criticizing the way we have done it, and causing our intelligence community to hunker down and have as their No. 1 goal, which is the impression I get sometimes, not getting in trouble, not getting in trouble with us. I think that is a good goal, but it is not an exclusive goal. It is not even the most important goal. All that needs to be looked at. If we think, in creating this Homeland Security Department, and a little Intelligence component emphasizing our infrastructure, that we have really dealt with all of that, we are fooling ourselves. That is a job for a little further down the road. I notice the Senator from Illinois in the Chamber. I have a bit more, but if the Senator wanted to comment, I would be glad to relent. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his statesmanlike approach to this matter. He is absolutely right that the way we are proceeding is not a usual occurrence. It is also a fact, however, that these are not usual times. I agree with him that it is vitally important we move forward. We have had a month or so of discussion and debate on this bill. We have a small window of opportunity now to do what we all know we need to do, and that is to go ahead and pass a homeland security bill. The Senator's actions that he has just taken will help that along immeasurably, and I thank him for that. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I now send a cloture motion to the desk to the pending bill.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk to the pending substitute amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Gramm, Miller, Voinovich, and myself I call up an amendment that is at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I move to table the pending Lieberman amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is taking up S. 2530, a bill to provide statutory law enforcement authority for certain Inspectors General, which I have introduced along with Senator Lieberman. In July of 2000, the Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on Inspector General issues. Among the issues addressed in that hearing was the need for statutory law enforcement authority. This bill was reported favorably by the committee on June 25, 2002 without opposition. Currently there are 23 Offices of Inspector General whose qualified law enforcement agents are deputized by the Attorney General on a periodic basis. Over the last five years, IGs have been responsible for over 25,000 successful criminal prosecutions, over $12 billion in investigative recoveries, and over 35,000 suspensions and debarments based on their investigations. In addition, they have played key roles in numerous joint task forces with Federal, State and local law enforcement officials. Under the current system, the Attorney General must renew each of these law enforcement deputations periodically. Unfortunately, there are some problems that exist under the current regime. First, the deputation process places a heavy burden on the U.S. Marshals Service. The Marshals Service is given responsibility for 2,500 IG agents without sufficient resources to conduct proper oversight. In addition, as we learned at our hearing, gaps in the renewal process could compromise ongoing investigations. Finally, many are concerned that the current blanket deputation process could leave an agent's actions open to legal challenge. This bill would remedy these problems without conferring any additional authorities on the IGs. And it provides for more oversight than currently exists under the deputation process. Specifically, it requires that the IGs conduct periodic peer reviews of their use of law enforcement authority and to provide reports from those reviews to the relevant IG as well as the Attorney General. Those peer reviews are not currently required under the deputation process. If the Attorney General determines than an IG no longer needs law enforcement authority, or that an IG has violated relevant guidelines, then that authority can be rescinded. Simply put, by making the process statutory, we will solidify a process already in place, provide for more oversight of the law enforcement authority than currently exists, and relieve some unnecessary administrative burdens. In addition, I believe that the bill is even more important in light of the events of September 11. The IGs provided valuable personnel and law enforcement assistance in the months following the tragedy. They served as sky marshals while permanent personnel were being trained. They helped the FBI run down leads in its followup investigation. And they worked within their own agencies to provide information about individuals on the FBI's watch list. The IG community's law enforcement agents provide a valuable service to this country, on top of the valuable service they provide every day, and they deserve to be recognized for what they are-- valuable law enforcement agents. I am pleased that the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have written to me in support of the legislation. The Justice Department suggested one change in the legislation--that the Attorney General be allowed to rescind law enforcement authority for individual agents as well as for entire offices--and I am happy to add that provision. I am gratified that the Senate will move forward with this important legislation and send it to the House. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of each of these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. I appreciate what the Senator from Delaware just said. I think it makes a lot of sense. I have many concerns about this amendment, but two stick out to me as I read it. My concern is that, under this rationale, if we were told we had good intelligence and we were convinced that within, let us say, 6 months we were going to be attacked, it would still not fit the definition of imminent and sudden. As I read it, the threat must be an imminent, sudden, and direct attack upon the United States. A sudden attack of 6 months would not qualify. It might be imminent, but it certainly wouldn't be sudden. I don't think we can afford that luxury. Second, our allies are totally excluded. Do we want to announce to the world that there must be only an imminent, sudden, direct attack upon the United States, its possessions, territories, and our Armed Forces, leaving our allies in that particular part of the world totally undefended by the United States? I don't think that is a message we want to send. I respectfully oppose the amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I congratulate my friend, the Senator from Arkansas, for an excellent presentation covering all the points. And if I had not been persuaded before I listened to him tonight, I would have been persuaded tonight. This Nation has spent many dollars and many lives in defense of others around the world. Tonight, we are considering a resolution that has to do with the defense of ourselves. People say that because our country does not go against another country without provocation that we should make the case of the need to take action, and that is true. We need to make that case before the world and before the American people. I believe that case has been made. It is a case that has been made upon, basically, facts we have known for a long time and have chosen to ignore and sweep under the rug. It is based on a shared history that we have had together now for many years. And looking back on it, we must ask ourselves, How were we able to ignore what is so obvious and pending for so long? We know Saddam's willingness to attack sovereign nations. We know Saddam's willingness to murder innocent individuals. We know he is in possession of weapons of mass destruction. We know he is developing missile capability that is beyond what is allowable by the United Nations resolutions and will rapidly be able to reach further and further. The only thing we do not know is how soon it is going to take him to develop nuclear weapons. I think that is essentially, from a factual standpoint, what this entire debate is about, because if, in fact, it is true that he, in the foreseeable future, will have nuclear weapons, do any of these other points that we have been discussing really stand? I think I have listened to many valid points and valid arguments of problems connected with moving against Saddam Hussein. I think the points that were made that the aftermath is going to be very difficult are very valid. I think the point that he might lash back against us in some way is a very valid concern. I think the point that in some places in the world they will be taking to the streets against us is a valid considerations. But if, in fact, it is true that in the foreseeable future he might or probably will develop nuclear weapons of mass destruction, do any of these other considerations really stand up or do they together stand up to that consideration? Can we afford not to defend ourselves against that consideration? What is the evidence pertaining to that? We are debating, again, not over whether or not he is going to have it, but how soon he is going to have it. Unfortunately, when we have made estimates in times past with regard to Saddam's nuclear capability in the early 1990s, with regard to missile capabilities of rogue nations, when we have gone back and thoroughly examined the situation--where, in Saddam's case, we have gotten inspectors in there because of defectors' information--we have found that we have grossly underestimated the capability of our adversaries, time and time again. Yet we are told by the entire world, those who have looked at this, that it is just a matter of time, a few years, if he has to develop his own fissile material, and perhaps as early as a few months or a year if he can buy it on the open market. I was privileged to listen to some of the weapons inspectors who went down to Iraq. I listened to some of the experiences they had. It caused me great concern to hear their lament about the way they were thwarted before and how hopeless their mission turned out to be because of what Saddam was doing, and how inspections in the future really will not work unless you actually get active cooperation from the people you are inspecting. I am talking about a country, what, the size of California, with an ability to hide anything almost anywhere. And they talked about the fact that when they went in before, they did not think Saddam had much in the way of nuclear. And they even were almost to the point of being able to certify that when a defector gave them some information. They went back. They found that not only had Saddam developed nuclear infrastructure, but he had a virtual ``Manhattan Project'' is the way they put it, a virtual ``Nuclear Manhattan Project'' when they went in there before. They said they had a facility there that was based on the facility down in Tennessee in Oak Ridge in terms of enriching uranium. This is what was there before. We do not know what he has now because he has made the decision to keep out inspectors. And we know from the CIA--a letter has been introduced in this Record--that the likelihood of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal builds. Now he has been down there for 4 years. We know he has the science. We know he has the know-how. We know he has the scientists. We know he has the desire. We know he has a history of knowing how to build facilities that will ultimately produce results for him. And we are standing here debating as to whether or not we should do something about that because we might have a little more time and we don't have eyewitness testimony as to precisely where he is at precisely this particular time. Those are things that have been on the record along with his violation of U.N. demands for many years. We have taken them for granted. We have taken for granted that hundreds of times our airmen have been shot at in the no-fly zone during all of this time. I have always wondered what the parents of someone shot down under those circumstances must feel like, being that far away, defending the interests of your country. Nobody knows about it. Nobody talks about it. Nobody seemingly cares that much about it. That has been going on continually ever since we left the gulf. These are things that are on the public record. They have been on the public record for a long time. We now have some additional facts that have not been on the public record that long, such as the fact he is busily trying to obtain dual-use equipment that can be used for uranium enrichment. We know more about his relationship with al-Qaida than we knew in times past. Again, according to the CIA director: We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida going back a decade. He says: Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qaida have discussed safe havens and reciprocal nonaggression. He says: Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qaida members, including some that have been in Baghdad. He goes further and says: We have credible reporting that al-Qaida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire [weapons of mass destruction] capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qaida members in the areas of poison and gases and making conventional bombs. These are recent things that are not as well known, have not been known over the years. Put all of that information together and you have a consensus on many things. As usual, we are spending a lot of time arguing over the things we disagree on. They are important. But I think we all agree the leader of Iraq is dangerous; that he is a threat; that that threat is growing, not diminishing; and that he is in violation of international law. The real issue is whether or not it is going to be easier to deal with this situation once he gets stronger than he is today. The question answers itself. The other question is whether or not we will show a reluctance to defend our own interests. We are rightfully concerned about acting precipitously. But did we act precipitously after the first World Trade Center bombing? Did we act precipitously after our men and women were killed in the Khobar Towers bombing? What was the message we sent after our two embassies were bombed and hundreds of people were killed? Were we acting precipitously after that? What did we do to avenge that or to set an example? What did we do after the Cole incident? Were we acting precipitously there? Or have we announced to the world, basically, or led Osama bin Laden to believe that we can be attacked that the response will not be commensurate with the attack? That is Osama bin Laden. We are talking about Saddam Hussein here, but the lesson is the same for tyrants throughout the world who pose a threat to this country. It has been a bad lesson that we have given for well over a decade now. Some say we should wait until there is an imminent danger; that we should calibrate carefully as to when that danger we know is growing becomes imminent; that we should tell Saddam Hussein on the front end we will not attack him until we know he poses not only a danger but an imminent threat. That, of course, is basically consistent with the United Nations charter. It has been the law of nations for a long time. We have to recognize that. The Treaty of Westphalia was mentioned, back in the 1600s, where the sovereign nations got together and decided that sovereign nations would not be attacked. We have perfected that somewhat. We have talked about imminent danger because traditionally we lived in a world where armies amassed on a border and that was the imminent danger. September 11 changed all that. That is not the kind of world we live in anymore. The imminent danger facing this country now does not amass itself on the border and give everybody time to debate and make up their minds as to what they are going to do. The threats we face today hide their activities. The threats we face today are not always apparent. Let there be no mistake about it, the United States is the target. It is the primary target. No one likes the sound of the word unilateralism. But is there anyone who disagrees with the action the Israelis took in 1981, when they took out the Osiraq nuclear plant in Iraq? I am really curious. There is a case of unilateralism if there ever was one. Was there any imminent threat? I don't even know if the plant was finished yet. But either way, there was no imminent threat that I know of that they were getting ready to produce material out of there to put in a bomb to attack Israel. They took it out. The United Nations condemned them. We condemned them. But is there anyone today who is really regretful the Israelis took that action? I would think under that theory, if we had to wait for imminent danger, we would have to ask ourselves, imminent with regard to our allies, would that count? With regard to our troops in the area, would that count? With regard to the homeland only? Those would be questions we would have to ask. We would have to ask ourselves: Does that not mean, under the philosophy of waiting for the imminent threat, we would have to wait not only until we had ironclad proof Saddam had nuclear capability and the means to deliver it, but that he was planning on actually hitting us with it? I don't think we have thought that fully through. Surely that is not what we are suggesting, that we almost have to have a missile in the air before we could act. It is somewhat of a precedent. It would be, if it comes to that. But we are in a position no other country has ever been in, as the Senator from Arkansas pointed out. We are living in a world no one has ever lived in before, where a handful of people can take modern technology and create a mortal threat to millions of people on the other side of the world. We simply have to address the fact that is the world we live in. Some say we should wait on the United Nations. That essentially goes to the heart of the amendment we are considering. I respectfully suggest if we pass this amendment, it would be a guarantee the United Nations would never act, because they would know they didn't have to. And so many who would rather avoid this because the United States is the target, and for other reasons, would never, ever face up to it, if they knew they didn't have to. Then I would ask: Where would we be? Some say, come back to the Senate in that weakened condition. Would we be in better shape having been turned down by the U.N. if we then went ahead in contravention of what they said or would it be better to stand tall on the front end, with the assurance that many countries in the United Nations are going to support us in our effort? The President has gone there and he has made the case. He has talked to our allies. The Secretary of State has been busy around the world. When people say we are going it alone, do not the British count? Does not Spain count? Does not Italy count? Do not the Arab nations I read about today in the paper, who are reluctantly coming along, count? I think we should go back and look at where former President Bush was at this stage of the proceedings. I think the first thing that happened there was he said this will not stand. Then he went internationally, and then the British came first, and then there was a period of time before very many people came forward after the British. Speaking of the British, I think it is ironic that the head of that government, in many respects, sees things more clearly than many of us do. The problem--as difficult as it is to acknowledge, but it is the plain truth--is we have lost the coalition we had before. We would like to go right back and say: Remember how we were together before, and remember how we made such progress, military progress, and there for a while we had Saddam Hussein on the ropes and we laid down all these requirements. In order for us to go home, he had to make all these agreements, and he did make those agreements. Remember how we were together then before he violated each and every one of them, and gradually, year by year, we not only allowed that to happen, but one ally after another started doing business with him. We are now asked to go before a Security Council containing the country of China, which is now furnishing fiberoptics communications systems to Saddam to help shoot our airplanes down. Are they the ones we are supposed to ask permission to defend our self-interests? We are looking at a Security Council with our friends, the Russians and the French, who want to do business with Saddam, and Saddam owes them money and they want that money back. Sure, the Arabs are kind of reluctant right now. And we are dealing with our now German friends who are led by an individual who will demagog his way to reelection on the backs of our country and, presumably, international relations. It is not an easy thing to say, but it is a true thing to say. We want our friends, our allies, and especially our NATO partners; but as they continue to let their defense budgets slide and the American taxpayer continues to have to foot the bill for the free world, essentially, should they be given a veto when our interests are so directly involved? I think not. I think we have to learn the lessons of the past, as difficult as it is. My friend from Arkansas mentioned Churchill. They didn't listen to Churchill after World War I. The result of their not listening to him was called World War II. Back when Hitler was on the move everything he did was not sufficient in and of itself to act. The allies thought they could always act later, and other countries should do other things-- excuse after excuse. That is not the message we want to send this time, Mr. President. I think it is clear that strength is the only hope we have for peace, and if we cannot have peace, we must do what is in the vital interest of this country. I yield the floor.