George Voinovich

Mr. VOINOVICH

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to James R. Tilling, who is retiring after 33 years of service to the State of Ohio. Mr. Tilling came to Ohio in September, 1969 to begin a career as a political science professor at my alma mater, Ohio University in Athens. He spent 6 years at Ohio University where he taught courses in American national government, urban government and politics, and Soviet government and foreign policy. In academic year 1973-1974, he was named a ``University Professor,'' an honor given each year to the 10 best teaching professors at Ohio University. Following his tenure as a distinguished Ohio University professor in 1977, Mr. Tilling joined public service, as director of communications and research of the Ohio Senate's Republican caucus. He served twice as minority chief of staff, in 1979 to 1980 and 1983 to 1984. He was elected clerk of the senate for 1981 to 1982. From January 1984 until April 1994, Mr. Tilling served as chief executive officer of the senate under then-senate presidents Paul Gillmor and Stanley J. Aronoff. In that capacity, he was responsible for the day-to-day operation of the senate's staff and also worked with senate Republican members to develop their legislative policy agenda. Through the years, Mr. Tilling made significant contributions which helped improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Ohio Legislature. For example, in 1981 and 1992, he was the principal coauthor of the bipartisan congressional redistricting plans which determined congressional district boundaries for the 1980s and 1990s. In 1991, he served as the secretary for to the Ohio Apportionment Board, where he helped craft the districting plan for the Ohio General Assembly in the last decade. In addition to creating the redistricting plans that have been in effect for 20 years, Mr. Tilling has been a key advisor in major policy debates in the Ohio Legislature, he has recruited candidates to run for the U.S. Congress and he has the regard of legislators and policymakers on both sides of the aisle. I worked with him and appreciated his contributions when I was Governor of Ohio during the 1990s. For the past 7 years Mr. Tilling has served as chief of staff and chief policy advisor to Ohio Attorney General Betty D. Montgomery. I recruited Betty Montgomery to run for attorney general and I know how valuable Mr. Tilling has been to her over the years. James R. Tilling has over three decades of dedicated and distinguished public service to the people of Ohio and our Nation. I commend his intellect and his passion for public service which have inspired colleagues and students alike. His contributions are longlasting and should be emulated for years to come.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, we have heard hours and weeks of debate on the Senate floor on this legislation. Among the principal arguments of some of the opponents of this bill is that President Bush and his administration cannot be trusted. I think the election last week proved that many Americans do believe our President can be trusted. He is a man of character. He is a man of integrity. He says what he means, and he means what he says. I think an example of that was--if you recall, there were many people who were opposed to the passage of the Iraq resolution by the Senate. Many of the calls I got in opposition to it were from folks who believed the President, if the resolution passed, would peremptorily go into Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein. I think all of us were quite impressed with his patience and the diplomacy of Secretary of State Powell that somehow was able to get through a very strong resolution in the Security Council that will finally enforce Iraq's compliance with those 16 previous resolutions of the United Nations. I think we do have a President who can be trusted. I think that is the basis of this legislation. It is not perfect, but I am confident it will not be abused. It is not, as some say, an encroachment on legislative branch prerogatives, as I have heard some contend. Madam President, I rise today to talk about an issue of critical importance to our Republic, and that is the urgent need for Federal civil service reform. I came to this floor earlier this fall to discuss how civil service reform can improve our ability to secure the homeland, and I rise again today because this issue remains at the crux of our renewed debate on the homeland security legislation. As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and chairman and ranking member of the Oversight of Government Management subcommittee, I have worked to focus the spotlight on this issue since I came to the Senate 4 years ago. During the course of 12 hearings and numerous meetings with national leaders in management and public policy, it became crystal clear that we were in the midst of a human capital crisis in the U.S. Government. Moreover, it became clear that this crisis is growing and will only get worse unless this Congress acts decisively to address it. Some people still ask what the human capital crisis is, how serious is it, and whether it really threatens the operations of the Federal Government. The human capital crisis is, simply stated, the inability of the Federal Government to properly manage its workforce. Robust personnel management includes the ability to recruit the best candidates, hire people in a timely manner, award performance bonuses and other motivational tools to provide training and professional development opportunities and the flexibilities to shape a balanced workforce. Good management includes the flexibility to act quickly and to compete as an employer of choice in this fast-paced 21st century knowledge economy. Madam President, I believe that if a Federal agency or department is important enough to receive the hard-earned tax dollars of my constituents and yours, we have a moral responsibility to see to it that the people's money is spent wisely. Outdated personnel practices and lack of training not only put agencies at risk of not being able to fulfill their mission and providing needed services to the American people, they also represent wasteful spending. We simply must provide the flexibility agencies need and give them the right tools to do their work. Within 2 years, more than 50 percent of the 1.8 million person Federal workforce will be eligible for early or regular retirement. It is virtually impossible to predict accurately the amount of experience and institutional knowledge that is literally going to walk out the door by the end of the decade. That is why it is not only right to focus attention on our human capital crisis, it is essential. Unfortuantely, until recent months, very few Members of Congress have paid much attention to this growing set of challenges. Now, as the Senate is considering legislation designed to reorganize the Federal Government in a way that will help secure our Nation against future terrorist attacks, civil service reform is front and center. This issue, which for years has not been substantively addressed, is of paramount importance in the consideration of the most significant government reorganization to take place in our Nation in half a century. It's about time. Congress last enacted major civil service legislation for the entire Federal Government 24 years ago in 1978. To operate effectively, the Federal Government cannot afford to revise its personnel laws only every quarter century. So much has changed over the years, and changing times require new thinking and new laws--policies that allow flexibility in our Federal government's civil service system. During the 107th Congress, I have worked with some of the Nation's premier experts on public management to determine what new flexibilities are necessary to create a world-class 21st century Federal workforce. These include: the Council for Excellence in Government, Partnership for Public Service, Private Sector Council, Brookings Institution, National Academy of Public Administration, and the Volcker Commission; Administration officials including OPM Director Kay James, and former OMB Deputy Director and current NASA Administrator, Sean O'Keefe; and representatives of federal employee groups like Bobby Harnage of the American Federation of Government Employees, Colleen Kelley of the National Treasury Employees Union, and Carol Bonosaro of the Senior Executives' Association. I am grateful for the respective and recommendations all of these groups provided and we drafted our legislation based on their insights. Our bill, S. 2651, the Federal Workforce Improvement Act of 2002, which I introduced with Senators Thompson and Cochran, is designed to get the right people with the right skills in the right jobs at the right time. It is a consensus package of human capital reforms that I believe will have a positive impact on the Federal Government's personnel management. Working closely with Senator Akaka, I successfully amended key provisions of this bill to the homeland security legislation during its consideration by the Governmental Affairs Committee in July. I am grateful for the support that Senator Akaka provided as we adopted those important government- wide personnel flexibilities. I only wish we had put more of S. 2651 in the homeland security bill. We need to get it all done. Next year, I intend to introduce these provisions again, as well as other human capital legislation that was not enacted this year. For example S. 1817, which would make Federal student loan forgiveness benefits tax-free; S. 1913, the Digital Tech Corps Act, which would establish a public-private exchange program for IT professionals, and S. 2765, the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Equity and Reform Act, which would create an employee exchange program between Federal agencies that perform law enforcement functions and state and local law enforcement agencies. These bills would strengthen the performance of our Federal workforce throughout the government. In the 108th Congress, I also intend to take a closer look at compensation issues, especially for the Federal law enforcement community. Serious recruitment and retention challenges have been a problem at agencies such as the FBI and other law enforcement agencies for a long time and we simply have to address this issue. The governmentwide human capital provisions we have already included in the homeland security legislation will have an impact not only on the new department, but on all Federal agencies. Our language will help the Federal Government begin to address its human capital challenges-- challenges that extend far beyond the corridors of the proposed Department of Homeland Security. The language does the following: It creates Chief Human Capital Officers at the Federal Government's 24 largest departments and agencies--officials who will have responsibility for selecting, developing, training and managing a high- quality workforce; And, it establishes an interagency Chief Human Capital Officers Council, chaired by the OPM Director, to advise and coordinate the personnel functions of each agency and meet with union representatives at least annually. In other words, we are giving human capital a much higher priority in the Federal Government, just as it is given in most corporations that are successful. It requires OPM to design a set of systems, including metrics, for assessing agencies' human capital management, something that has been largely ignored; It reforms the competitive service hiring process, allowing agencies, consistent with merit principles (including veterans' preference), to use an alternative category ranking method for selecting new employees instead of the ``Rule of 3,'' making the process more efficient and fair--a practice that has been very successful at the Department of Agriculture for the past decade; It provides government wide authority for offering voluntary separation incentive payments and voluntary early retirement (``buyouts'' and ``early outs'') for the purposes of workforce reshaping, not downsizing. This authority, which I was able to secure with legislation three years ago, is currently being used effectively on a limited basis at the Department of Defense; It lifts the total annual compensation cap for senior executives, allowing performance bonuses to be paid in full in a single year; And, it reduces restrictions on providing academic degree training to Federal employees, thereby emphasizing the importance of individual professional development. All of these things I just talked about are not only going to impact the homeland security department, but they are governmentwide. All agencies will be able to take advantage of these provisions in the homeland security bill. In light of the fact that there has not been government-wide civil service reform in a quarter century and, as the Hart-Rudman Commission noted just last year, personnel is the basis for maintaining national security, it is absolutely appropriate that this legislation be included in the bill to create the Department of Homeland Security. In fact, in testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, former Defense Secretary and member of the Commission, James Schlesinger noted: . . . it is the Commission's view that fixing the personnel problem is a precondition for fixing virtually everything else that needs repair in the institutional edifice of U.S. national security policy. If we do not fix the personnel problem, we are not going to be able to fix anything else that is wrong with the system. I thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle for including these important provisions in the compromise language we are considering today. The Homeland Security Department is not the first--and not the last-- agency that needs to have greater flexibility. Flexibilities and reforms, similar to those proposed in the compromise language for the Department of Homeland Security, which I will describe in a moment, are needed throughout the executive branch. I would like to take a few moments now to discuss the personnel provisions in the compromise language that apply specifically to the new department. As I said, I have worked with Republicans and Democrats on these provisions and I believe this language will provide the Department with the tools it needs to get the job done, and at the same time will respect the rights of those union workers being transferred into the new department. First, the compromise language includes the House-passed language proposed by Representatives Connie Morella and Chris Shays with an additional provision that I have recommended. This language would, for the first time, limit the current authority of the President to exclude an agency or agency subdivision from participation in a collective bargaining unit. Under current law, the President may exclude participation in a collective bargaining unit upon determining that the entity has as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative or national security work and that permitting the entity to have collective bargaining rights would be inconsistent with national security requirements and considerations. The compromise language would limit the President's current authority only with regard to the new department. It would prohibit the President from using the exclusionary authority unless the mission and responsibilities of a transferred agency materially change and a majority of the employees within such an agency have as their primary duty intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative work directly related to terrorism. So in effect, we have limited the President's authority to exclude employees from union membership. The language does provide, however, that the President could waive the above limitations on his authority if he determines in writing that their use would have a substantial adverse impact on the department's ability to protect homeland security. If he does this, I presume he will do it under this provision. We have also added some language I have proposed requiring that if the President does not execute his authority under the Morella language, he must notify Congress at least 10 days prior to the issuance of his written order. This will bring the light of day into his decisionmaking process. I don't expect him to do it, but I think that is one way we can guarantee that such action will not be arbitrary and capricious. The second compromise provision in this bill was proposed by Representatives Jack Quinn and Rob Portman over in the House. I want everyone to understand this so they can see how much more limited this bill is than what the President originally sent us. That initial proposal featured a personnel system that was similar to the one established last fall for the Transportation Security Administration, which waived most of title 5. Of course, the Homeland Security Department, the President realized Congress would flesh out his proposal, and that is what happened. This legislation we are considering would create a new agency under title 5, allowing modifications in only six areas. The House-passed version is less flexible than what the administration wanted, but it is designed to deal with the personnel flexibility sought by the President, and to address the collective bargaining rights that many of our colleagues seek to protect, including me. This language would preserve employee rights, including hiring and promotion based on merit and equal pay for equal work, and would protect employees from improper political influence and reprisal for whistleblowing. Employees would still be protected from prohibited personnel practices, such as illegal discrimination, politicized hiring or promotion processes, and violation of veterans' preference requirements. Furthermore, employees would still have the right to organize, bargain collectively, and participate through labor organizations of their own choosing in decisions that affect them. The compromise language requires the new Department collaborate with unions and other employee organizations in creating its personnel system. The language also improves the arbitration process by ensuring both employees and management concerns are fully and publicly vetted. If a collective bargaining unit disagrees with a management proposal related to one of the 6 areas subject to modification, the union representative would have 30 days to consult with agency management on rule changes and offer recommendations. If agreement is not reached, the Secretary of Homeland Security could declare an impasse and submit the dispute to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, a process that could last an additional 30 days. At the conclusion of that period, the Secretary could proceed with the proposed changes, regardless of the mediator's recommendations. Again, this is very much like the language I added requiring the President to make public his decision if he waives the Morella language. In this case, at the beginning of the 30-day arbitration period, the differences between collective bargaining unit employees and management would be established so everyone would know what the differences are. In other words, if there is a difference of opinion, it is aired publicly. It is not going to be hidden somewhere. We are all going to know about it. The American people will know about it, and Congress will know about it. After the 30-day period, the differences would be resolved. At the end of the total of 60 days, it is over. I would have been open to more robust participation of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service or another third-party mediator in resolving disagreements over title 5 modifications. However, the system established by this legislation is a compromise, and I support it. The real test of this language is going to be how the administration handles work rule changes, whether or not disputes are handled openly, and the unions' concerns treated fairly. It will be imperative for the administration to demonstrate its commitment to an open and fair process in a spirit of cooperation rather than confrontation with the unions. If we do not resolve some of the differences between the administration and the unions, the chances of this new agency being successful are remote. And I have encouraged the President to meet with Bobby Harnage and with Colleen Kelley. As a mayor and Governor, I went through reorganizations, and I learned that you cannot get it done unless you have built trust with your labor union members. I would like to make one final observation on this bill before us today. We should not sacrifice the good for the perfect. I recognize Members on both sides of the aisle have some concerns about certain provisions. So do I. For example, I disagree with the language that will transfer the first responder program from its current location in FEMA to the new Department's Border Security Directorate rather than the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate. That does not make sense to me. Nevertheless, the legislation before us to create a new Department of Homeland Security, I think, overall, is a good bill, and I intend to vote for it. I have been one of the leaders on civil service reform during the last two sessions of Congress. I believe I have probably dedicated more time than any other Senator to addressing the Federal Government's personnel needs. I have tried to raise the profile of this issue, and then to work in good faith with all interested parties to develop solutions. Based on my work, I want my colleagues to know I feel that the personnel provisions in the compromise language can go a long way towards putting personnel management in the executive branch back on track. I urge the passage of this very important bill. We have to get on with it. It is going to take time to establish this new department. We have to secure the homeland. We need to get going. I thank the Chair.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I speak today on behalf of a bill considered by the Senate, H.R. 4755, to designate a post office in Lancaster, OH, as the ``Clarence Miller Post Office Building.'' I strongly support this bill honoring a long-time Member of the Ohio Congressional delegation. Clarence Miller is a native and lifelong resident of Lancaster, OH. The third of six children, Clarence grew up during the difficult times of the Great Depression. He learned the value of hard work at an early age and began his professional life by delivering newspapers for the Lancaster Eagle Gazette. After graduating from high school, he started his career at Ohio Fuel and Gas digging ditches. Through determination and hard work he eventually earned a position of electrical engineer. While employed full time at Ohio Fuel, he joined his family in opening a small electric wiring business in Lancaster and worked there during his ``off'' hours. At Ohio Fuel, Clarence was introduced to politics when he participated in a civics course offered to help employees better understand government. Clarence was enthralled by the subject and soon began teaching the course. He was able to put into practice all he learned when he was appointed to fill a vacancy on the Lancaster City Council. Subsequently, he was elected to a full term and then was elected mayor. Following his term as mayor, Clarence served the people of 10th District of Ohio in the U.S. House of Representatives for 27 years, from 1966-1993. Representative Miller served for 6 years on the House Agriculture Committee and the Public Works and Transportation Committee, and then he was selected to serve on the Appropriations Committee, where he served for 20 years, and fought hard to reduce Federal spending during times of skyrocketing deficits. Mr. Miller's achievements did not go unrecognized by his fellow Ohioans. His many awards include honorary doctorate degrees from Marietta College and Rio Grande College, and the Phillips Medal of Public Service from Ohio University. I thank my colleagues for their consideration of this matter important to the people of Ohio.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, nearly ten years ago, a group of students at Riverside High School in Painesville, OH watched with horror as a U.S. soldier in Somalia was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. The students, concerned that there was no memorial in our Nation's capital to honor members of our armed forces who lost their lives during peacekeeping missions such as the one in Somalia, felt compelled to take action. This group of motivated young people spearheaded a campaign to establish a Pyramid of Remembrance in Washington, DC to honor U.S. servicemen and women who have lost their lives during peacekeeping operations, humanitarian efforts, training, terrorist attacks, or convert operations. The students not only proposed the memorial, they created a private non- profit foundation to raise the money to construct the memorial. The community pulled together, providing legal counsel for the students and private donations to help fund the project. Thanks to their hard work, the proposed Pyramid of Remembrance would be built at no cost to the taxpayer. In April 2001, the National Capital Memorial Commission, charged with overseeing monument construction in Washington, DC, held hearings about the proposed Pyramid of Remembrance. The Commission recommended that the memorial be constructed on Defense Department land, possibly at Fort McNair. The commissioners also noted that such a memorial would indeed fill a void in our Nation's military monuments. On May 6, 1999, I spoke on the Senate floor in honor of two brave American soldiers, Chief Warrant Officer Kevin L. Reichert and Chief Warrant Officer David A. Gibbs, who lost their lives when their Apache helicopter crashed into the Albanian mountains during a routine training exercise on May 5, 1999, as U.S. troops joined with our NATO allies in a military campaign against Slobodan Milosevic. As I remarked at that time, the United States owes David, Kevin and so many other service members a debt of gratitude that we will never be able to repay, for they have paid the ultimate sacrifice. As the Bible says in John chapter 15:13, ``Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' I support the vision of the students at Riverside High School and applaud the work they have done to make the Pyramid of Remembrance a reality. I believe it is our duty to honor American men and women in uniform who have lost their lives while serving their country, whether in peacetime or during war. I am pleased to introduce in the Senate a companion measure to H.R. 282, introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Steve LaTourette, which would authorize the Pyramid of Remembrance Foundation to establish a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to soldiers who have lost their lives during peacekeeping operations, humanitarian efforts, training, terrorist attacks, or covert operations. A monument honoring members of our Armed Forces who have lost their lives in peacetime deserves a place of honor in our Nation's capital. I commend and thank the students in Painesville, their parents, and the teachers and community leaders who have supported them for their hard work and dedication to this cause. The proposed Pyramid of Remembrance would fill a void among memorials in Washington, DC. I encourage my colleagues to support their worthy endeavor and to join me in support of this bill. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, nearly ten years ago, a group of students at Riverside High School in Painesville, OH watched with horror as a U.S. soldier in Somalia was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. The students, concerned that there was no memorial in our Nation's capital to honor members of our armed forces who lost their lives during peacekeeping missions such as the one in Somalia, felt compelled to take action. This group of motivated young people spearheaded a campaign to establish a Pyramid of Remembrance in Washington, DC to honor U.S. servicemen and women who have lost their lives during peacekeeping operations, humanitarian efforts, training, terrorist attacks, or convert operations. The students not only proposed the memorial, they created a private non- profit foundation to raise the money to construct the memorial. The community pulled together, providing legal counsel for the students and private donations to help fund the project. Thanks to their hard work, the proposed Pyramid of Remembrance would be built at no cost to the taxpayer. In April 2001, the National Capital Memorial Commission, charged with overseeing monument construction in Washington, DC, held hearings about the proposed Pyramid of Remembrance. The Commission recommended that the memorial be constructed on Defense Department land, possibly at Fort McNair. The commissioners also noted that such a memorial would indeed fill a void in our Nation's military monuments. On May 6, 1999, I spoke on the Senate floor in honor of two brave American soldiers, Chief Warrant Officer Kevin L. Reichert and Chief Warrant Officer David A. Gibbs, who lost their lives when their Apache helicopter crashed into the Albanian mountains during a routine training exercise on May 5, 1999, as U.S. troops joined with our NATO allies in a military campaign against Slobodan Milosevic. As I remarked at that time, the United States owes David, Kevin and so many other service members a debt of gratitude that we will never be able to repay, for they have paid the ultimate sacrifice. As the Bible says in John chapter 15:13, ``Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' I support the vision of the students at Riverside High School and applaud the work they have done to make the Pyramid of Remembrance a reality. I believe it is our duty to honor American men and women in uniform who have lost their lives while serving their country, whether in peacetime or during war. I am pleased to introduce in the Senate a companion measure to H.R. 282, introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Steve LaTourette, which would authorize the Pyramid of Remembrance Foundation to establish a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to soldiers who have lost their lives during peacekeeping operations, humanitarian efforts, training, terrorist attacks, or covert operations. A monument honoring members of our Armed Forces who have lost their lives in peacetime deserves a place of honor in our Nation's capital. I commend and thank the students in Painesville, their parents, and the teachers and community leaders who have supported them for their hard work and dedication to this cause. The proposed Pyramid of Remembrance would fill a void among memorials in Washington, DC. I encourage my colleagues to support their worthy endeavor and to join me in support of this bill. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for extending the courtesy to allow me to speak for about 13 minutes in regard to the resolution that is before us today. Madam President, after careful consideration, meditation and prayer to the Holy Spirit for enlightment and wisdom, I rise today in support of the resolution before us. We all recognize that the world is a very different place than it was before September 11. In spite of the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and the attacks on our Embassies in Africa, the threat of terrorism was not taken seriously enough by our country and the rest of the world. The tragic events of that day-- our 21st century Pearl Harbor changed the way that we and the rest of the world perceive terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. For America, the loss of more than 3,000 lives demanded this change and, as I said on 9/11, demanded that we ``identify those who committed these cowardly acts, as well as those who encourage them through actions or silence, and make them fully pay for their crimes.'' Saddam Hussein poses a clear threat to peace in the world, to America and our interests, to regional stability, and to his own people. After briefings by the Secretary of Defense, the President's National Security Advisor, the Director of the CIA, and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I am convinced that the threat is real. He has an arsenal of sophisticated chemical and biological weapons and continues to refine and manufacture them and develop ways to deliver them. He is working as if his life depended on it to acquire nuclear weapons and deliver them. He supports terrorist groups and encourages violence against Israel with cash payments to the families of suicide bombers. Although we have not connected the acts of al-Qaida and 9/11 directly with Iraq, we know that al-Qaida is present there as are representatives of other terrorist groups. After 9/11, do we doubt that terrorist groups would turn down the opportunity to get their hands on Saddam's weapons and use them against us? It is well documented that Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons against his own people and his neighbors. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, during the Iraq-Iran War Saddam used chemical weapons in August 1983, against Iranians and Kurds, resulting in 100 casualties; in October and November of 1983 against Iranians and Kurds resulting in 3,000 casualties; in February and March of 1983 against Iranians causing 2,500 casualties; in March 1984 against Iranians causing between 50 and 100 casualties; in March 1985 against Iranians causing 3,000 casualties; in February 1986 against Iranians causing 8,000-10,000 casualties; in December 1986 against Iranians causing 1,000 casualties; in April 1987 against Iranians causing 5,000 casualties; in October 1987 against Iranians causing 3,000 casualties; and in March of 1988 against Iranians and Kurds causing hundreds of casualties. And, no one needs to be reminded that he invaded a peaceful neighbor and committed countless atrocities against the people of Kuwait until the world community acted in concert to drive him out. Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at the international community for a decade by ignoring U.N. Security Council resolutions--resolutions that required him to disclose his weapons stockpiles, to disarm, and to cut ties to terrorist groups. He has lied repeatedly and has proven beyond any possible doubt that he cannot be trusted. Moreover, by example, Iraq encourages other rogue nations and groups to follow its lead with a simple message: ``Go ahead and do what you want. The world community does not have the backbone to stop you.'' That example cannot be allowed to stand. Saddam Hussein is the neighborhood bully and only when neighbors come together and say enough is enough can he be stopped. He needs to understand that the jig is up and the world must act now together to protect the peace by confronting this bully. It is not only appropriate but essential that members of the United Nations come together to confront Saddam Hussein, and I applaud the President for challenging the United Nations to reaffirm its relevance by standing up to Iraq. Already his diplomatic efforts have produced results. If the President had not successfully crystallized international attention with his speech before the United Nations, then Iraq would not even have started talking about letting inspectors return. It is imperative that the U.N. Security Council pass a strong resolution demanding that Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions allowing for unfettered inspection without conditions, dismantle his weapons of mass destruction, and that the U.N. back up these demands with the threat of force. It is my hope and prayer that these diplomatic efforts will succeed. However, if the world is to be safe from Saddam Hussein, if we are to preserve stability in the Middle East, and if the United States is to be safe, then we--in cooperation with our allies--have to be willing to take military action if our diplomatic efforts are rebuffed. In the event that military action should be required, it should be done under the auspices of the U.N. or, in the alternative, in conjunction with our allies as we did in Operation Desert Storm. That coalition successfully drove Saddam out of Kuwait and paid for $57 billion of the operation. A broad, multinational coalition will send a strong signal of international resolve not only to Saddam Hussein, but to others who seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. It will show that the international community will not sit idly by, but will instead come together to confront grave threats to peace and security in the world. Finally, should Saddam Hussein be removed from power as a result of military action or internal upheaval, a strong international coalition will more effectively implement peacekeeping and rebuilding efforts-- rebuilding efforts that can largely be paid for with Iraq's substantial oil resources. If we are to count on the international community's participation throughout this effort then it is imperative that we work to solidify their support from the very beginning. Let us be perfectly clear, Congress has already enacted strong legislation concerning Iraq. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 passed the Senate unanimously and passed the House by a vote of 360-38. This legislation established that regime change is U.S. policy toward Iraq and it provided $97 million to Iraqi opposition groups. The resolution before us today puts a premium on diplomacy first but backs up words with actions if necessary. It is a significant improvement over previous versions that, frankly, failed to adequately prioritize diplomacy and the need for the U.S. to seek international cooperation. One of the concerns I have heard repeatedly from Ohioans was the fear that the U.S. would go it alone and preemptively strike Iraq without first reaching out diplomatically or engaging the international community. I would strongly oppose that course of action. The resolution before us today, in my opinion, does not allow that to happen. It makes clear the convictions of Congress that the President should exhaust all diplomatic options first, but if Iraq resists diplomatic solutions, then the President is authorized to use all necessary means to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions in Iraq. In section 2, the resolution calls on the President to work with the United Nations. In section 3, the resolution allows the President to back up our diplomacy with action, defend American interests against Iraqi threats and enforce U.N. resolutions concerning Iraq. In exercising the authority under section 3, the President is required to first determine that reliance on diplomacy alone will not succeed in protecting our national security or lead to enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Also, he is required to report that determination to Congress and make regular reports on the status of any military action. This version of the resolution is an improvement over previous versions because it contains new language supporting the President's efforts in the U.N. to obtain Saddam's compliance with Security Council resolutions. It also limits and defines the scope of the authorization to use military force specifically to Iraq instead of the entire region. It limits the duration of authorization to the current and ongoing threats from Iraq and clarifies that the authorization to use force applies to the U.N. resolutions concerning Iraq. The resolution today reflects compromise, is balanced, limited in scope, and specific in its goals. Most importantly, it reflects the importance of putting diplomacy first and working with the international community to solve the Iraqi threat. Madam President, I do not take my vote on this resolution lightly and understand the enormous impact it can have on the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces and their families, and on our country and the world. As Governor I served as the commander-in-chief of the Ohio National Guard during Operation Desert Storm. I attended the funerals of those that did not come back and, because my wife Janet and I have lost a child, I understand the grief of parents and have an insight into the enormous loss to surviving spouses and to their children. I also grieve for those we lost on 9/11 and for their families and I vowed that I would do all in my power to make sure that we would never have another 9/11. Madam President, I believe that voting for this resolution will help me keep my vow. I also believe that voting for this resolution will reduce the likelihood of using force. Madam President, I trust our President. He is a man of good character. He has surrounded himself with one of the most experienced, knowledgeable teams fielded by any President in my memory starting with Vice President Cheney to Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. I have been briefed by State, Defense, the CIA and the White House. I wish all Americans could have sat in on these briefings. I believe the resolution before us that was put together in bipartisan negotiations reflects the balance of power that must exist between the executive and legislative branches. It allows the President the authority to use force but respects Congress' power to restrict that authority. It reflects the concerns of Congress that every diplomatic effort be made first and that any action take place in cooperation with the international community. May the Holy Spirit enlighten the leaders of the world to understand the true meaning of the Second Great Commandment to love they neighbor as thyself and may God continue to bless America as we go forward. Thank you, Madam President. And I thank the Senator from Virginia for allowing me to make this statement on my support of the fine resolution he has put together.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Illinois, Senator Richard Durbin, as a co-sponsor of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency Interstate Supervision Act of 2002. I thank my colleague from Illinois for his initiative in advancing this legislation. As my colleague noted, Congress created the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, CSOSA, as part of the 1997 National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act to absorb the responsibilities of three local D.C. agencies. In accordance with that law the Federal Government assumed responsibility for many of the city's judicial functions, including all pre-trial services and the post-conviction supervision of parolees and probationers. With the support of the District and CSOSA, our bipartisan legislation seeks to clarify that CSOSA is the entity responsible for all offenders, whether on parole, probation, or supervised release, who reside in the District of Columbia or those convicted in District Court and choose to relocate outside of the District of Columbia. When CSOSA was established, it was expressly charged with the responsibility to arrange for the supervision of District of Columbia paroled offenders who wish to move outside the boundaries of Washington, D.C. Today, however, a growing number of offenders are placed on probation or supervised release, not parole. Our legislation clarifies that CSOSA is the agency responsible for arranging for their supervision. The original legislation also did not address directly the issue of supervision of offenders who relocate to the District of Columbia. Since CSOSA absorbed the local agency that previously held this responsibility, it has been acting in that capacity. Again, our legislation clarifies that CSOSA is the entity with this responsibility. Finally, our legislation clearly grants CSOSA the authority to enter into agreements with other states and territories to establish guidelines for offender relocation. An interstate compact, signed by all the states and territories, has established guidelines for the movement of adult offenders. The compact was created originally in 1937 and the states are in the process of revising it to enhance accountability for all offenders on parole, probation, or supervised release. More than half of the states already have signed this revised Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision. The District of Columbia has not signed it, however, primarily because they do not have responsibility for offenders. Our legislation expressly grants CSOSA the authority to do so in their capacity of providing offender supervision. This legislation clarifies CSOSA's mission, a mission critical to the public safety of our nation's capital. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Illinois, Senator Richard Durbin, as a co-sponsor of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency Interstate Supervision Act of 2002. I thank my colleague from Illinois for his initiative in advancing this legislation. As my colleague noted, Congress created the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, CSOSA, as part of the 1997 National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act to absorb the responsibilities of three local D.C. agencies. In accordance with that law the Federal Government assumed responsibility for many of the city's judicial functions, including all pre-trial services and the post-conviction supervision of parolees and probationers. With the support of the District and CSOSA, our bipartisan legislation seeks to clarify that CSOSA is the entity responsible for all offenders, whether on parole, probation, or supervised release, who reside in the District of Columbia or those convicted in District Court and choose to relocate outside of the District of Columbia. When CSOSA was established, it was expressly charged with the responsibility to arrange for the supervision of District of Columbia paroled offenders who wish to move outside the boundaries of Washington, D.C. Today, however, a growing number of offenders are placed on probation or supervised release, not parole. Our legislation clarifies that CSOSA is the agency responsible for arranging for their supervision. The original legislation also did not address directly the issue of supervision of offenders who relocate to the District of Columbia. Since CSOSA absorbed the local agency that previously held this responsibility, it has been acting in that capacity. Again, our legislation clarifies that CSOSA is the entity with this responsibility. Finally, our legislation clearly grants CSOSA the authority to enter into agreements with other states and territories to establish guidelines for offender relocation. An interstate compact, signed by all the states and territories, has established guidelines for the movement of adult offenders. The compact was created originally in 1937 and the states are in the process of revising it to enhance accountability for all offenders on parole, probation, or supervised release. More than half of the states already have signed this revised Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision. The District of Columbia has not signed it, however, primarily because they do not have responsibility for offenders. Our legislation expressly grants CSOSA the authority to do so in their capacity of providing offender supervision. This legislation clarifies CSOSA's mission, a mission critical to the public safety of our nation's capital. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Could the Senator speak a little louder? I am wearing a hearing aid.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I don't see anybody else seeking recognition on my side of the aisle. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I beg to differ with the Senator from Nevada. We do want to move forward with this homeland security bill. We do want it to pass. We know how necessary it is for the President to have this new Department, with the flexibility he needs to merge more than 20 agencies. From my perspective, I cannot figure out why the Majority has been filing cloture motions on some of these amendments, when I think they could make a motion to table instead. I am still trying to figure that out. I may need to get the Parliamentarian to explain what this is all about. But I can assure you, that after the time I have spent on this issue with many of my colleagues, including many on the other side of the aisle, we want this to move forward. We would like to have a vote up or down on the President's amended proposal, which is contained in the Gramm-Miller amendment. We would like to have a vote on the recommendations from Senators Nelson, Breaux, and Chafee, and see where the Senate stands on that amendment. We have to move this along. We cannot go home, I think, without getting this done. I know this has gotten to be pretty partisan. But I honestly believe that if we can sit down and start talking about some of this a little bit more, we could work something out and move ahead. I assure the distinguished Senator from Nevada that we are not delaying this. We want to move forward. And I will certainly do anything I can to help cooperate in this regard. But we want a vote on the Gramm-Miller amendment. We also want a vote on the amendment of Senators Nelson and Chafee and Breaux.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, since my election to the Senate in 1998, I have given top priority to a public policy issue that seldom gets the attention it deserves: The challenges of our Federal Government's civil service system. For nearly 4 years, I have used my position as a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and chairman and ranking member of the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee, to focus the spotlight on this critically important issue. As I learned more about the condition of our Federal Government's personnel system, it became crystal clear we are in the midst of a human capital crisis in the United States Government, one which will only get worse unless this Congress acts decisively to address it. What is it? Is it real? Why do we have it? The human capital crisis is, simply stated, the inability of the Federal Government to properly manage its workforce. Robust personnel management includes the ability to recruit the best candidates, hire people in a timely manner, award performance bonuses and other motivational tools to encourage retention, provide training and professional development opportunities, and the flexibility to shape a balanced workforce. Good management includes the flexibility to act quickly and to compete as an employer of choice in the fast-paced 21st century knowledge economy. Unfortunately, at present, the Federal Government's ability to use such tools is not what it could be. By now, we have all heard the statistics, and maybe some of my colleagues have not heard them. The average Federal employee is 47 years old. By 2005, more than 50 percent of the 1.8 million person Federal workforce will be eligible for early or regular retirement. Even more incredible is the fact that by 2005, 67 percent of the Senior Executive Service will be eligible for regular retirement, and an additional 21 percent will be able to retire early. This is an astounding 88 percent of our top-level workers, managers, department heads, and division chiefs. I was talking to businesspeople this morning, and they said: ``Explain to us what this is about.'' I said: ``Consider your own businesses. Say during the last 10 years you were eliminating employees without any regard for how that would affect your mission, or how high-tech manufacturing and information technology has changed your business. Then imagine half the remaining people working in your plant are going to retire soon. Then imagine that about 88 percent of your top managers are going to retire also. Where would you be today?'' They got it. I remind my colleagues, this dire predicament refers to what could happen in the next 2 to 3 years, but it is virtually impossible to predict accurately the amount of experience and institutional knowledge that is literally going to walk out the door at the end of this decade. Some may ask: Is the human capital situation really that important? Is it really a crisis in the Federal Government? Consider some additional evidence we have learned from officials in some of the agencies that handle national security and finances, such as the CIA, FBI, FEMA, Social Security Administration, and Department of Commerce. CIA Director George Tenet, in recent congressional testimony, said within 3 years, between 30 and 40 percent of his workforce will have been there for less than 5 years. According to a recent GAO report, more than 70 agencies have foreign language needs, and staff shortages at those agencies, such as the FBI, ``have adversely affected agency operations and hindered U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence, counterterrorism, and diplomatic efforts.'' Mr. President, do you remember after 9/11? The call went out: We need people who can speak Arabic and Farsi. Incredible. Ten years after the Persian Gulf war, we remain actively involved in the Middle East, yet we do not have enough people who speak Farsi and Arabic in the FBI, the State Department, or the CIA. At FEMA, retirements have accelerated since 9-11-2001 as employees have reevaluated priorities, and nearly 50 percent of the remaining workforce will be eligible for retirement in the next 18 months. According to a recent Federal Times survey of more than 2,200 managers at our Social Security Administration, dramatic downsizing in the ranks of managers and front-line employees has hurt training, caused burnout, strained resources, reduced managers' effectiveness, and created disconnects between headquarters and field offices, all at a time when the agency's workload is skyrocketing. According to GAO, the Department of Commerce is unable to effectively monitor U.S. trade laws with foreign countries due to a shortage of staff with the right expertise. Mr. President, the evidence is clear. The Federal Government has a serious human capital crisis. That is why I have sought information from some of the best minds in the country over the past few years in public policy and management, and why I have spent so much time listening to the people closest to the problem. Furthermore, Mr. President, I believe that if a Federal agency or department is important enough to receive the hard-earned tax dollars of my constituents and yours, we have a moral responsibility to see to it that the people's money is spent wisely. Outdated personnel practices and lack of training not only put agencies at risk of not being able to fulfill their mission and provide needed services to the American people, this also represents wasteful Federal spending. We simply must provide the flexibility agencies need and give them the right tools to do their work. I have sought to attract attention to this issue at every opportunity. My subcommittee held 10 hearings from July 1999 to March of 2002. Two of those hearings were held by Chairman Durbin, and I thank him for his willingness to work with me on this issue. Earlier this year, Senator Akaka held 2 days of legislative hearings on civil service reform. I also recognize his leadership and partnership on this issue. I sincerely appreciate their assistance in raising the profile of our pressing human capital challenges. Also, in December of 2000, just before our new President took office, I released a comprehensive report on this subject ``The Report to the President: The Crisis in Human Capital'' which summarized our subcommittee's activities during the 106th Congress and made recommendations to the incoming administration on how to address the Government's human capital challenges. Mr. President, I want you to know I have not been alone in my assessment of the situation. In 2001, Comptroller General of the United States David Walker designated human capital on the General Accounting Office's ``High-Risk List.'' In the past, other areas that were on the list, such as the Y2K problem, the 2000 census, the Superfund Program, and the Department of Agriculture's farm loan programs, received attention and priority, and they no longer threaten the operations of the Federal Government. As Congress did with these issues, we must prioritize human capital; otherwise, this crisis will persist. Dr. Joseph Nye, Dean of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, one of the top public policy schools in the Nation, also identified the Federal Government's human capital crisis as a critical issue. The problem truly hit home for his academic institution. During the nineties, increasing numbers of Kennedy School graduates, despite their top-notch graduate level training in public policy, chose employment in the private and nonprofit sectors rather than work for the Federal Government. Dr. Nye noted he did not want the Kennedy School to be known as the second best business school in Cambridge! As a result, he organized a series of executive sessions during the 2001-2002 academic year, bringing together approximately 30 leaders on human capital management from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors: For example, professors from Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, CEOs, and former senior officials at the Departments of Treasury, Labor, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, and Office of Management and Budget. I attended three of the four sessions and found them productive and insightful. In addition, the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, a bipartisan group chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, released a series of reports providing a comprehensive evaluation of our national security posture. We have been talking a lot about national security, haven't we? Their reports included many recommendations on homeland security which we are considering in this bill that is before the Senate. The Commission's final report concluded as follows: As it enters the 21st century, the United States finds itself on the brink of an unprecedented crisis of competence in Government. Unprecedented crisis. The maintenance of American power in the world depends on the quality of the U.S. Government's personnel, civil and military, at all levels. We must take immediate action in the personnel area to ensure the United States can meet future challenges. Furthermore, in his testimony before our committee, former Defense Secretary and member of the Commission James Schlesinger added: It is the Commission's view that fixing the personnel problem is a precondition for fixing virtually everything else that needs repair in the institutional edifice of U.S. national security policy. Mr. President, yet another poignant illustration was offered by FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh when he testified before a Senate committee earlier this year. I note FEMA is one of the key agencies in the proposed Homeland Security Department. In describing his workforce needs, Director Allbaugh said: We have not been spending enough time internally on our employees. Before 9/11, retention was a problem and there was essentially no recruitment. Over the next 18 months, nearly 50 percent of our agency is eligible for retirement, and since 9/11, retirements have accelerated. The people who worked at Ground Zero came to my office with a different perspective on life. They want to spend more time with their kids, grandkids, and spouses. I think these comments represent the feelings of many Federal employees, and Director Allbaugh's testimony calls attention not only to the urgent need for reform of our civil service laws, but also for a completely new mindset for considering the Federal Government's personnel requirements and workforce culture. Mr. President, if that is not a compelling call to address this issue, I do not know what is. Despite all the evidence that significant human capital challenges exist in the Federal Government, this issue has not received the attention it deserves. To its credit, the Bush administration has taken steps to raise the profile of this issue. In fact, strategic human capital management is one of the five governmentwide issues targeted for reform in the President's management agenda, which was released in August of 2001. Having recently marked the 1-year anniversary of the horrendous and unprecedented terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, the Senate is considering legislation designed to reorganize our Federal Government in a way that will help our Nation prevent future such attacks. Suddenly, in the context of this debate, civil service reform is the issue du jour. It is an issue which for years has not been substantively addressed except when agencies become dysfunctional. It is now front and center in the consideration of the most important Government reorganization to take place in our Nation in half a century. It is about time. In the debate over homeland security, we have backed into this personnel issue that has demanded attention for so many years. At least we are finally taking the first step to address the problem by having a debate on the subject. We are talking about personnel practices and the people who make a difference for the Government and deliver the services. Unfortunately, however, this debate is limited to the proposed Department and not to the needs of the entire Federal Government. The entire Federal Government needs new flexibilities. Congress last enacted major civil service legislation for the entire Federal Government 24 years ago in 1978. In today's fast-paced, high-tech world, the 1970s represent almost prehistoric times when people were still using typewriters and the only computers were mainframes. To operate effectively, the Federal Government cannot afford to revise its personnel laws only every quarter or half century. The basic classification and compensation system for the Federal Government dates back to World War II, when the professionals in the civil service had jobs as clerks and typists and were at GS levels 2 and 3. Today's civil service professionals are typically GS-12s and GS-13s. So much has changed over the years, and changing times require new thinking and new laws--policies that allow flexibility in our Federal Government civil service system. The intellectual basis for one of the areas I have sought to reform, competitive hiring, dates back to the Grant administration! Back then, our soldiers were using single-shot, repeating rifles, the telegraph was cutting-edge communications technology, and the primary mode of transportation was the horse! That was when we started the ``rule of three.'' I know of no successful business anywhere in the world that is using a personnel system based on management theory that is more than 50 years old, or which dates from the Industrial Age. During the 107th Congress, I have worked with some of the Nation's premier experts on public management to determine what new flexibilities are necessary to create a world-class 21st century workforce, and to draft legislation based on their insights. These individuals include some of our colleagues in Congress, including Senator Akaka; officials of the Bush administration such as OPM Director Kay Coles James; former OMB Director Sean O'Keefe, who now heads up NASA; Clinton administration appointees who spent a lot of time on this, including Steve Kelman, the former Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy; and Elaine Kamarck, a domestic policy adviser to then-Vice President Gore--this is a bipartisan effort; Federal employee unions such as the American Federation of Government Employees, with their president, Bobby Harnage, and the National Treasury Employees Union, NTEU, and their president, Colleen Kelley; representatives of public policy organizations such as the Council for Excellence in Government, Partnership for Public Service, Private Sector Council, Brookings Institution, National Academy of Public Administration, and the Volcker Commission; and subject experts in some of our country's top educational institutions, including Dr. Jack Donahue of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. I was especially attentive to the concerns of unions, making several significant changes to my draft legislation since last summer to allay their uneasiness with some of its flexibilities. I felt it was important. As someone who dealt with 25 unions when I was mayor, and with 5 unions when I was governor, I know it is important that unions be at the table and that their input be taken into consideration. We made changes that include new language to clarify that the intent of my proposed early retirement and buy-out authority is workforce reshaping, not the downsizing of the 90s; as well as the revision of removal of provisions that enjoyed strong support from other stakeholders, including the establishment of a public/private exchange program to cross-pollinate good management ideas between sectors of the economy. In other words, we tried to accommodate the concerns of our union representatives. Finally, Mr. President, I note that my bill was the subject of a letter to Chairman Lieberman and other members of the Governmental Affairs Committee, a letter of support for the legislation was signed by 29 Kennedy School executive session participants. By combining my reform proposals with those of the administration, both of which I introduced last fall, I was able to develop a package of consensus human capital reforms that I believe will have a positive impact on the Federal Government's personnel management. On June 20, along with Senators Thompson and Cochran, I introduced that consolidated bill, S. 2651, the Federal Workforce Improvement Act, a measure that is designed to get the right people with the right skills in the right jobs at the right time. In July, during its consideration by the Governmental Affairs Committee, working with Senator Akaka, I successfully amended key provisions of this bill to the homeland security legislation, and I really appreciate the bipartisan support we received for those changes. I am grateful to Senator Akaka for that. I only wish we had put more of S. 2651 into the homeland security bill. I hope as we wrap up homeland security--at least I hope we wrap it up, my colleagues will conclude we should adopt the rest of the provisions of S. 2651 in this important legislation. Let us get it done all at once. The provisions we have already included will have an impact not only on the new Department but on all Federal agencies. The Voinovich-Akaka language will help the Federal Government begin to address its human capital challenges, challenges that extend far beyond the corridors of the proposed Department of Homeland Security. These flexibilities are not as comprehensive as what we were proposing for the new Department, but they represent a good start on the path of reform in this critical area that has not received adequate attention by past administrations or Congress. It does the following: Creates Chief Human Capital Officers at the Federal Government's 24 largest departments and agencies, officials who have responsibility for selecting, developing, training and managing a high-quality workforce; establishes an Interagency Chief Human Capital Officers Council chaired by the OPM Director, to advise and coordinate the personnel functions of each agency and meet with union representatives at least annually; requires OPM to design a set of systems, including metrics, for assessing agencies' human capital management, something that has been largely ignored; reforms the competitive service hiring process, allowing agencies, consistent with merit principles, to use an alternative category ranking method for selecting new employees instead of the ``Rule of 3,'' making the process more efficient and fair, a practice that has been very successful at the Department of Agriculture for the past decade; provides governmentwide authority for offering voluntary separation incentive payments and voluntary early retirement, buyouts and early- outs, for the purposes of workforce reshaping, not downsizing. This authority, which I was able to secure with legislation 3 years ago, is currently being used effectively on a limited basis for civilian employees at the Department of Defense. It also lifts the total annual compensation cap for senior executives, allowing performance bonuses to be paid in full in a single year; and it reduces restrictions on providing academic degree training to federal employees, thereby emphasizing the importance of individual professional development. In light of the fact that there has not been government-wide civil service reform in a quarter century and, as the Hart-Rudman Commission noted, personnel is the basis for maintaining national security, it is absolutely appropriate that this legislation be included in the bill to create the Department of Homeland Security. I thank Senators Gramm and Miller of their willingness to consider my proposals which represent extensive efforts to address the Federal Government's personnel challenges during my 4 years in the Senate, and for including the Voinovich-Akaka language in their substitute amendment. I believe it is a strong addition that also has the administration's support. As I said, I hope we'll be able to add the balance of S. 2651 to the homeland security bill before we conclude this debate, because these reforms are badly needed. The Homeland Security Department is not the first, and not the last, agency that needs to have greater flexibility. Even more comprehensive flexibilities and reforms, similar to those proposed in the Gramm- Miller substitute for the Department of Homeland Security, which I will describe in a moment, are needed at other agencies as well, including the Department of Defense and NASA. These agencies may provide the impetus for Congress to return to this issue next year. In fact I asked Senator Warner and Senator Levin, when they were considering the Defense Authorization bill, to give consideration to accepting some personnel flexibilities that the Department of Defense wanted. I know from Secretary Rumsfield that they will be coming back asking for those flexibilities. It is my hope that the incremental provisions I have developed with my colleagues and a diverse group of stakeholders over the course of the last year will assist the rest of the federal government while we consider next steps. I would like to take a few moments now to discuss the personnel provisions in the Gramm-Miller substitute that apply specifically to the new department. I have worked with Senators Gramm and Miller on these provisions and believe this language will provide the Department with the tools it needs to get the job done, and at the same time respects the rights of those union workers being transferred into the new department. I say this because I am close to the leadership in both of our major unions. They have some concerns. I tried to get the administration to sign an Executive order continuing partnerships between unions and the Federal Government. Unfortunately, this did not happen. The administration also included competitive sourcing on the President's Management Agenda, setting targets that each department had to meet in order to receive a green light on the Management Scorecard. I said, if you tell an agency head that he must outsource 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent--instead of trying to shape his department with the people he has and give them training, he will spend all his time figuring out how he is going to outsource those jobs. The proposed Department of Homeland Security will merge nearly 170,000 employees from more than 20 Federal agencies. This is a momentous undertaking. Although the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947 combined a larger number of civilian and military employees, the consolidation we are now contemplating would require more than a score of different workplace cultures and personnel systems to be effectively harmonized, all while the Nation entrusts this new department with the one of Federal Government's most urgent and important missions: to preserve the homeland and protect American citizens from harm. In order to accomplish this very tall order, the President and the new Secretary of Homeland Security will need new flexibility, and I believe Congress should authorize it. In recent years, however, Congress has engaged in management by scandal, only granting more flexibilities when agencies under-perform! For example, the FAA, IRS and SEC each received special personnel authorities over the last decade, but only after each of these agencies was singled out for its failure to achieve its mission. The Bush Administration has correctly pointed out that we cannot wait for a similar occurrence at the Department of Homeland Security, and it has justifiably sought broad flexibility for the new department before any mission failures occur. On a related matter, Mr. President, it is interesting to note that the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman Commission form the intellectual basis for large portions of the underlying legislation we are debating today. Yet, while we are paying close attention to the Commission's recommendation to establish a new Department of Homeland Security, we are not seriously considering its recommendations to modernize the civil service system. We simply must take these necessary steps now. The personnel provisions in the Gramm-Miller substitute represent a good-faith effort to modernize the personnel system for the new department. The Quinn-Portman amendment would preserve employee rights, including hiring and promotion based on merit and equal pay for equal work, and would protect employees from improper political influence and reprisal for whistle-blowing. Employees would still be protected from prohibited personnel practices, such as illegal discrimination, politicization of the hiring or promotion processes, and violation of veterans' preference requirements. I notice my friend, Senator Akaka was talking about the fact that whistle blowing is not involved in the amendment. We specifically talk about protection of employees against reprisal for whistle blowing. Furthermore, employees would still have the right to organize, bargain collectively, and participate through labor organizations of their own choosing in decisions that affect them. First, the substitute features House-passed language proposed by Representatives Jack Quinn and Rob Portman. In June, the President sent to Congress a blueprint for the personnel system he envisioned at the new department. The President realized that Congress would flesh out many of the issues in his proposal, and that is just what happened. The House-passed version is less flexible than what the Administration originally requested--it is really important to understand that--but it is designed to deal with the personnel flexibility sought by the President, and to address the collective bargaining rights that many of our colleagues seek to protect. The Quinn-Portman amendment retains most of title V's provisions. This is not as broad as Transportation Security Administration to which Congress gave blanket exemptions from title V last November. The language also requires that the new department collaborate with unions and other employee organizations in creating its personnel system. In addition, it includes procedures to ensure that exclusive bargaining units are represented by individuals designated by the union itself. It also provides certain safeguards for employees as the proposed department develops a new system for employee appeals. In order to ensure that the new human resources management system is developed in collaboration with the unions, the Quinn-Portman amendment provides for direct involvement by employee representatives in three stages of the development process. In the first stage, as the human resources management system is being designed, the Secretary and OPM Director must provide a written description of the proposed system or adjustment to the system; allow each employee representative at least 60 days to review and make recommendations on the proposal; and give any such recommendations full and fair consideration in deciding whether or how to proceed with the proposal. At the second stage, when the Secretary and OPM Director decide to implement a human resources management proposal, they must, prior to implementation: give each employee representative details of the decision along with information upon which the decision was based; give each employee representative an opportunity to make recommendations; and give such recommendations full and fair consideration. If any employee representatives' recommendations are not proposed to be implemented, the Secretary and Director must explain why. During the third stage, once a human resource management system proposal is implemented, the Secretary and OPM Director must develop a method for each employee representative to participate in any further planning or development. The Quinn-Portman amendment also fleshes out the Administration's original proposal by providing necessary flexibilities in six key areas: performance appraisals, classification, pay rates and systems, labor-management relations, adverse actions, and appeals. Each of these areas would be open to modernization, subject to the explicit limitations included in the language to protect employees, which, as I have just delineated, are comprehensive, and rooted in current civil service law. We currently have pending a second-degree amendment to the Gramm- Miller amendment from Senators Ben Nelson, Chafee and Breaux. They would like to reduce the six areas of flexibility to four. I happen to believe that the administration, in order to create this new Department, is going to need those six areas of flexibility to get the job done. Based on my experience as mayor and Governor, I thought it also would be a good idea to have the Secretary negotiate as opposed to consult with union representatives in the six areas in which the administration is seeking flexibility. My belief in that regard comes about as a result of my experience over the years. In other words, after the consultation and the negotiation occurred, there would be an impasse panel that could be appealed to for a final decision. I thought that would be helpful because it would make the negotiation more robust and there would be fewer areas of disagreement. Once it was over, the parties could say the matter was taken to a third party and decided. That is the way it should be decided. In other words, and I want to point out to my colleagues, the success or failure of the administration to get the job done is going to depend on the relationship they develop with our labor unions and other Federal employee organizations. If there is consensus, if there is openness and a sense of fairness, this will be a great success. On the contrary, if it is an adversarial relationship, one that is not open, one where we don't have the discourse that we need, it will be a failure. I have reorganized as Governor. I have combined departments as Governor. And I have found that the only way you can be successful is to work with organized labor on a consensus basis and work things out. Without working things out, it will not be a success. I have brought this to the attention of the administration several times. I am confident that with the process that is in the Gramm-Miller amendment, the process will be open and fair. I have talked to Kay Coles James, Director of the Office of Personnel Management; I have talked to Mark Everson, Deputy Director for Management at OMB, and many other people. They understand that they have to build trust with the unions if they expect to have a successful Department. If they don't work together and achieve a consensus, we are in big trouble. Finally, the Gramm-Miller substitute includes the House-passed language proposed by Representatives Connie Morella and Chris Shays-- with an additional provision that I have recommended. This language would, for the first time, limit the current authority of the President to exclude an agency or agency subdivision from participation in a collective bargaining unit. Under current law, the President may exclude participation in a collective bargaining unit upon determining that the entity has as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative or national security work and that permitting the entity to have union organizations would be inconsistent with national security requirements and considerations. Under current law, the President may exclude participation in a collective bargaining unit upon determining that the entity has a primary function of intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative or national security work, and that permitting the entity to have union organization would be inconsistent with national security requirements and considerations. I want to make this clear to my colleagues. The Morella-Shays language would limit the President's current authority only with regard to the new department. It would prohibit the President from using the exclusionary authority unless the mission and responsibilities of a transferred agency materially change and a majority of the employees within such an agency have as their primary duty intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative work directly related to terrorism. The language does provide, however, that the President could waive the above limitations on his authority if he determines in writing that their use would have a substantial adverse impact on the department's ability to protect homeland security. Senators Gramm and Miller have agreed to add language that I proposed requiring that, when the President executes his authority under the Morella-Shays language, he must notify Congress of the reasons for his determination at least 10 days prior to the issuance of his written order. What our unions are worried about is arbitrary and capricious action on the part of the President exempting members from membership in their unions. This language basically says that we, for the first time, in the Homeland Security Department, will limit that power of the President, and if he exercises it under Morella-Shays, it means his decisionmaking will be subject to a filing in Federal court as to whether he has abused his discretion in exercising that power. This is very important. If he decides to waive it and says, no, I don't want to do it by Morella-Shays, I want to go ahead and exercise my power, that basically says the President has to put it in writing, and send it to Congress. The unions will see it, the majority will see it, the minority will see it, the media will see it, and public personnel experts will see it. I have tried to convince some of my colleagues that this process is open to public scrutiny. I have to say to my colleagues, how can you ask this President of the United States--at a time when we have a national security crisis--to give up the same authority held by all other Presidents since 1962-- when we create this new Department of Homeland Security? The fact that this administration has agreed to set up criteria and limit the President's authority to certain specific reasons for exercising it--to then say to the President, by the way, you can't do that now. To say, 'you have to send it to Congress 10 days in advance' is more than enough limitation on this historic executive authority. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I say to my friends in the unions, that, first of all, I don't believe this President is anti-labor or trying to short-change or treat our employees improperly. Second of all, even if he thought of doing something like that, or somebody recommended it, he would have to explain the rationale in writing, and allow it to be held up to public scrutiny 10 days prior to his order taking effect. Mr. President, I have been one of the leaders on civil service reform during the last two sessions of Congress. I believe I have probably dedicated more time than any Senator to addressing the Federal Government's personnel interests. I have tried to raise the profile of this issue and then work in good faith with all interested parties to develop solutions. Based on my work, I want my colleagues to know I believe the personnel provisions in the Gramm-Miller substitute can go a long way towards putting personnel management in the executive branch back on track. I just hope that somehow in the next couple of days we can work something out on both sides of the aisle so that people feel comfortable that we can protect the rights of organized labor and at the same time give the President of the United States the authority and the flexibilities he needs to get the job done. I hope that after this debate is over, the well is not so poisoned that when the administration and the unions begin to sit down and talk with each other, they can work together to arrive at a consensus so that this reorganization can be successful and fruitful, and we can achieve what we all want to achieve to secure our homeland. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Lieberman homeland security bill, the Gramm-Miller amendment, and the Nelson-Chafee-Breaux amendment to that amendment. Before I do that, I will comment on the fact I am really disturbed at what I see going on here in the Senate in terms of the President of the United States. Our President has more on his plate than perhaps any President in my memory. He has the Middle East situation. I have been studying that for 20 years. That is more fragile than I have ever seen it during my lifetime. We are in Afghanistan. We have forgotten we are there. That is a major undertaking. We are trying to work diplomatically to make sure Pakistan does not go after India and India after Pakistan, which could embroil us in a nuclear situation. We have a problem with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We have a domestic economy in bad shape today. People in this country are losing faith in our financial markets. We are in a very fragile, shaky period. What we should be doing in the Senate is rallying to the cause to try and be as supportive as we can of the President, who is trying to rally the world and the United Nations and our allies in dealing in a responsible way with Saddam Hussein, who has thumbed his nose at us for so many years and has set up a new paradigm in terms of the United Nations where they will work together to make it very clear they will not tolerate people such as Saddam Hussein. I was going to say it is business as usual in the Senate; I just wish it were business as usual. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will start to understand the American people are watching what we are doing here, and it is important that we behave in a way that gives them confidence that we are more interested in moving our country ahead than we are in partisan politics.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add 10 minutes to the time allocated to me under the order.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I submit for the Congressional Record the following statement on Iraq, which I released following the President's remarks to the United Nations one week ago today. I ask unanimous consent that my statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today on behalf of the people of the State of Ohio to congratulate Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery and her staff for being selected to receive the 2002 American Bar Association, ABA, Pro Bono Publico Award. In May 2000, Betty Montgomery unveiled an office-wide Pro Bono Initiative to provide legal assistance for low-income seniors and hospice patients across Ohio. Through this program, participating staff attorneys offer their time and talents to provide legal assistance to those who can't afford it. Once training is completed, attorneys are allowed to provide their services at no charge for up to 40 hours a year. Services provided by assistant attorneys general include wills, general powers of attorney, durable powers of attorney for health care, and other ``end-of-life'' legal issues. Since the program's inception, 125 assistant attorneys general, 20 paralegals, and 15 secretaries have answered the call to help underserved Ohioans handle their legal matters. To date, the office has served 625 clients by providing them with 1,235 healthcare powers of attorney, living wills, powers of attorney, and wills. This year, the Attorney General's office is one of five recipients of the ABA Pro Bono Publico Awards. The Pro Bono Publico Awards were established by the ABA in 1984 and are presented annually by the ABA Standing Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service to recognize lawyers, law firms and corporate law departments for extraordinarily noteworthy contributions in extending legal services to the poor and disadvantaged. This is not the first time that the Attorney General's office has been honored for these services. In 2001, the Columbia Bar Foundation and Association recognized the program with its award for Outstanding Pro Bono Service by a Governmental Agency. In addition, the Ohio Legal assistance Foundation and the Ohio Bar Association presented the Attorney General's office with the 2001 Presidential Award for Pro Bono Service. I am proud to have worked with my friend, Betty Montgomery, when I was Governor of Ohio. Her unwavering commitment to serving the people of Ohio through pro bono services is vital towards maintaining a justice system that is meaningful to all segments of society. This program serves as a testament to our founding fathers' belief in a system of equal justice for all. I believe that every lawyer has an ethical and professional obligation to provide pro bono services. It is my hope that this sets a challenge for lawyers statewide and sends the message that participating in pro bono programs is an ideal that is embraced by leaders in the legal community. Betty Montgomery has certainly led the way in this endeavor. I am proud of her accomplishment and I congratulate Attorney General Montgomery and her staff on their dedication to providing pro bono services to all of Ohio's citizens.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Astronauts Colonel Carl E. Walz and Captain Daniel W. Bursch for their significant contributions and record-setting accomplishments as part of the International Space Station's Expedition 4 Crew. Astronauts Walz, Bursch, and Expedition Commander and Russian cosmonaut Yuri Ivanovich Onufrienko departed from Kennedy Space Flight Center on December 5, 2001, for what became a 6\1/2\ month stay aboard the International Space Station. The crew of three spent 196 days in space, with Carl Walz and Dan Bursch establishing a new U.S. space flight endurance record. The previous U.S. record belonged to Astronaut Shannon Lucid, who spent 188 continuous days in space aboard the Russian Mir Space Station. With four previous flights and his Expedition 4 mission, Astronaut Walz also established a new U.S. record for the most days in space, with a total of 231 days, surpassing Dr. Shannon Lucid's record of 223 days. We look to our Nation's space program to improve life here on Earth and explore the unknown. We also look toward the future, to the time when we will extend life beyond the bounds of Earth. On February 20, 2002, while aboard the International Space Station, the Expedition 4 crew spoke with Ohio's former Senator and NASA pioneer, John Glenn, who was the first American to orbit the Earth 40 years ago. We have come a long way in the U.S. space program, and our future discoveries are limited only by our imagination and commitment. We must give special recognition to our Astronauts whose personal and professional commitment to live and work in space continues to break barriers and thresholds. While on the International Space Station, in addition to maintaining, operating and performing research experiments, the Expedition 4 crew installed the S-zero truss segment. The S-zero truss forms the backbone of the Station which will eventually hold the four solar array ``wings'' of the U.S. segment. The crew tested the new Quest Airlock and performed the first spacewalk from it without the Space Shuttle present. The crew also was the first to use the Space Station Robotic Arm as a ``cherry picker,'' maneuvering space walkers ``flying'' on the end of the arm during spacewalks. After an extended, U.S. record-setting stay on the International Space Station, the crew returned to Earth with Shuttle Endeavor, landing at Edwards Air Force Base, California, on June 19, 2002. Astronaut Carl E. Walz, a Colonel in the U.S. Air Force, was born in Cleveland, OH. He and his wife, the former Pamela J. Glady, have two children. Walz has received numerous Distinguished Service medals, including the Defense Superior Service Medal, three NASA Space Flight Medals, and the NASA Exceptional Service Medal. Astronaut Daniel W. Bursch, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and a Captain in the U.S. Navy, considers Vestal, NY to be his hometown. He and his wife, the former Roni J. Patterson, have four children. Captain Bursch also has received recognition for distinguished service, including the Defense Superior Service Medal and NASA Space Flight Medals. Bursch has over 3,100 flight hours in more than 35 different aircraft and has logged a noteworthy 227 days in space. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I thank astronauts Carl Walz and Dan Bursch for their courage, commitment and contributions in service to the United States of America.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today as a Senator from a State that is on the edge of becoming one of those red areas on that national map. This Senator does not want his State to become one of those red States. I rise in strong support of Senator McConnell's medical liability amendment. The litigation tornado that continues to sweep the Nation does not seem to be losing strength. In fact, at the rate lawsuits continue to be filed, the only entity that stands to lose strength is our economy. The cost of malpractice insurance has had an enormous impact on the rising costs of health care and the cost of health care insurance to the extent that more and more of my constituents are complaining that the cost of insurance is so high that they can no longer afford to buy it. In particular, the effect of rampant litigation has really had a disastrous impact on the health care industry. When a pharmaceutical company decides not to develop and produce a new drug because the cost of possible litigation could erase any profit, who really loses? When physicians choose not to perform certain procedures, such as delivering babies, because malpractice insurance rates are too high, who loses? Even worse, when a physician stops practicing medicine because he or she no longer can afford the insurance premiums or is so fearful of malpractice being filed against them, who loses? Recently, the American Medical Association released an analysis which found that medical liability has reached crisis proportion--I underscore ``crisis proportion''--in 12 States. One of those 12 States is Ohio. In addition, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the ACOG, issued a red alert and warned that without State and Federal reforms, chronic problems in the Nation's medical liability system could severely jeopardize the availability of physicians to deliver babies in the United States of America. The good news for Ohioans is that Ohio did not make the ACOG's list of nine hot States, those in which a liability insurance crisis currently threatens the number of physicians available to deliver babies. The bad news is that Ohio is only one step short of that mark. It is one of three States where a crisis is brewing. In fact, signs of the crisis are already beginning to show. Currently, in Hancock County in northwest Ohio, they have only one physician to deliver babies. Think about it, a county with a population of over 70,000 people has 1 physician to deliver babies. He has indicated that if his insurance premiums continue to climb at the current rate, he will have to close up shop. That sounds like a crisis to me, and I am sure it sounds like a crisis to the women in Hancock County who need someone there to deliver their babies. I believe this amendment that Senator McConnell has before us gets us on our way to enacting meaningful medical liability reform. It limits attorney's fees so that the money awarded in court goes to the injured parties, who are the people who really need the money. It also allows physicians to pay any large judgments against them over a period of time to avoid bankruptcy and requires all parties to participate in alternative dispute resolution proceedings, such as mediation or arbitration, before going to court. It limits punitive damages to twice the sum of compensatory damages. These are all reasonable limitations. One of the growing areas in the legal profession is mediation and arbitration. In fact, the Michael Moritz School of Law at Ohio State University, of which I am a graduate, is one of the leaders of that initiative in the legal profession. When I was Governor of Ohio, I joined the chief justice of the supreme court and wrote to all the businesses in our State encouraging them to agree to a mediation and arbitration in order to reduce litigation costs and, frankly, improve the economic environment in our State. Why shouldn't we do this in medical malpractice cases? Doesn't it make sense? Providing a commonsense approach to our medical liability problems is certainly a win-win situation. Patients would not have to give away large portions of their judgments to their attorneys and physicians could focus on doing what they do best: practicing medicine and providing health care. I know there are differences of opinion about how to approach this, but we do have a crisis in this country. If those who are opposed to Senator McConnell's amendment are concerned about this problem, then it would serve us well to sit down and figure out some way we can address this problem. We need to do it now, not tomorrow, not next month. I can tell you, if we do not do something about this problem, we are going to see more and more people in this country do without medical care. We are going to see a lot more of our physicians dropping out of the practice of medicine. And we truly will have something we never experienced in this great country, and that is a health care crisis. I thank the Chair. I yield back any time to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, about 10 minutes will do it.

Mr. VOINOVICH

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.