John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. As Commander in Chief, if he believes an attack has been made on this country, or that an attack is imminent which he believes he has to preempt, he has the authority to use those forces, and we don't have to pass this.

Mr. WARNER. Fine.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it quotes our distinguished colleague, Senator Edward Kennedy, as saying: I am waiting for the final recommendation of the Security Council before I am going to say how I am going to vote. I would like to give the Senator an opportunity to clarify.

Mr. WARNER. But the one I drew your attention to, I say to my good friend, is the one drawn by Mr. Lieberman and myself, which language is somewhat changed. This is the one that is presently the subject of this debate.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my colleague. I thank him for recognizing what he was reading from previously is separate from the resolution which I coauthored with Senator Lieberman which he now has read. That is the subject. I say most respectfully to my colleague, I firmly say there is nothing in this resolution, of which I was privileged to be a coauthor with others, which in any way transcends the authority given to the President of the United States by this Constitution. We have a disagreement on that.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, that is a challenge. I will consider that. But let me just say, earlier today I recounted how this body has only used that power to declare war five times. Yet we have sent forward men and women of the Armed Forces into harm's way upwards of 200 times. I say to my friend, that is a challenge. I assert very firmly, there is nothing in this resolution that goes beyond the authority the President has. This President, as well as any other President, could act tomorrow without the specific authority of Congress, if he felt it was necessary to use the troops to defend the security interests of this country.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the war in Vietnam did not have a declaration. That was not minor, and you know that well. There were over 50,000 casualties. The war in Korea, in which I had a very modest role in the Marine Corps, was not modest. There were over 50,000 casualties.

Mr. WARNER. I respect this. We just have strong differences. I think we have stated them. I would like to read this bit of history. I was going to save this for next week. You have raised properly the classification of this current set of facts as presenting the preemptive issue. But let me read you--I will hand this to you, but it will be in the Record--use of the military forces of the United States in engagements which have the facts that could be judged as preemptive action by our Presidents: In 1901, in the Colombia-Panama engagement; 1904, 1914, and 1965, the Dominican Republic; 1912, Honduras; 1926, Nicaragua; 1958, Lebanon; 1962, naval quarantine of Cuba; 1983, Grenada; 1986, Libya; 1989, Panama, Just Cause; 1992, Somalia; 1998, Sudan; 1998, Iraq, Desert Fox, when President Clinton ordered that; 1999, Kosovo. You and I had that resolution together, brother Senators, on Kosovo. We did the right thing.

Mr. WARNER. I remember that well.

Mr. WARNER. Not liberal but prepared.

Mr. WARNER. That is correct.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, could I just add a fact here? In August, I became so concerned about the national dialogue on this issue that I took it upon myself to write the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, urging that promptly upon the Congress returning from its August recess period we initiate hearings. Senator Levin and I worked together on the scheduling of hearings. We talked before the August recess and in due course a hearing schedule was put together. Regrettably, the timing of those hearings has been such that our committee apparently will not have its hearing with the four Chiefs of Services who were to come before the Armed Services Committee. A second hearing we had tentatively agreed on was having General Franks, the commander in chief of the particular area of operation that is involved, to come before the committee. So I say to my friend, regrettably, we have not had the opportunity-- I tried in August to get these started, but we just did not complete that hearing schedule.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we were to have the hearing on General Franks today. Now, the reason it was not held, I leave that to my colleague from Massachusetts to consult with the chairman.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I ask my distinguished colleague and very good friend of many, many years just a question or two? I listened very carefully to his remarks. I just wish to observe that, on the point about----

Mr. WARNER. I think he yielded, and I asked if I could engage in a colloquy. The Senator mentioned the case has not been made to connect al-Qaida to Iraq, but I think the Senator is aware of the fact that the Secretary of Defense has now revealed what was intelligence prior thereto, the fact that al-Qaida has now established some training camps, and so forth, within the sovereign boundaries of Iraq. That, to me, is a very important bit of intelligence that has come to the forefront. Senator Byrd keeps saying, What is new? To me, that is very new. It is now out in the open. While I am not suggesting there has been an absolute, airtight, direct connection between 9/11, 2001, it is clear that Iraq sponsors and shelters terrorists, including al-Qaida. On the point about the generals who appeared before the Armed Services Committee, the Senator referred to portions of their testimony. But I have the very clear recollection--I sat with Chairman Levin throughout every minute of that hearing. These generals also, when pressed by myself and others, said there are times when the U.S. has to act alone, if necessary, to defend ourselves and protect our national interests. That is the point, time and time again, that I debated with our distinguished colleague, Senator Byrd, in which we have, I suppose, from his perspective, different opinions. The Senator in his remarks just now indirectly suggests that we should wait on the U.N. Perhaps there will be a new inspection regime. I know Secretary of State Powell has brilliantly and courageously worked up there to develop a strong United Nations resolution. We will have to await judgment until that resolution is forthcoming. But I think we cannot leave in the minds of the American people that, in any way, our Nation must relinquish the authority, under the Constitution, to protect our own national interests--relinquish it in any way or predicate it on action of the United Nations. We cannot do that. We cannot let the United Nations think in any way they could veto the authority of this President or the ability of this Nation to defend itself. I hope the Senator was not suggesting that in any way by his remarks.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I agree with that.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, it had been my hope-- and there was planning in place--that our committee, the Armed Services Committee, was to have had hearings this week with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and most specifically with General Franks, who has been entrusted with much of the planning. I leave it to our chairman to give the responses to why that did not occur, but that is a fact that we had planned to do it. Secretary Rumsfeld declassified information recently and said that al-Qaida has camps existing now within the sovereign boundaries of Iraq, and senior al-Qaida leaders have had sanctuaries in Iraq. While the link, as I pointed out, between 9/11 has yet to be established, there is information of the linkage. I am more concerned with the question I posed to the Senator. In any way does his remark suggest we should abrogate our right to act when it is in our security interest because of action or inaction, as the case may be, of the United Nations on the resolution now being formed while our Secretary of State and others are working to establish the framework in such a way that it would meet the concerns that this Nation has, and I believe Great Britain? It may not. And if it does not meet them, does that action to put out a new inspection regime which falls below the standards and requirements and goals that we think are necessary, does that mean we do nothing? Does that mean our President's hands and the hands of the Prime Minister of Great Britain are tied? What are we to do? Allow another ineffective inspection regime to take place, which would possibly obviate the possibility of engaging Iraq more forcibly, if it were necessary to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction? Would you clarify the position you have taken?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in reply to my colleague's observations, in no way has this Nation lessened the intensity or commitment to the war on international terrorism in Afghanistan or elsewhere. It may not be the featured article in the press today, but I assure the Senator that the men and women of our Armed Forces, together with those of many other nations, are pressing unrelentlessly against the spread of terrorism, be it in Afghanistan or elsewhere in this world. Again, I bring my colleague back to this question of the United Nations. A quote appears in today's newspaper. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following our colloquy an article from today's Washington Post.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I commend our distinguished colleagues, Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh, for joining my good friend, Senator McCain, and myself as we introduce this resolution on behalf of the leadership in the Senate. Certainly, those leaders will join us on this. I remember in 1991, Senator Dole, Senator McCain, and I led the effort on this side of the aisle, and my good friend and colleague of these many years joined us. There was a historic debate. We will now embark this great body of deliberation on a similar debate on this extremely important resolution. I commend our President for the leadership he has shown. This issue would not be in the forefront worldwide, the forefront in the U.N., and now in the forefront of the U.S. Congress had not this very bold and courageous President undertaken the difficult task of pointing out the perilous times in which we live with regard to terrorism and, most particularly, the threats posed not by the people of Iraq, but by Saddam Hussein and his regime. Madam President, I wish to commend Leader Lott. We met with him this morning. We have been meeting with him through the day. Senator McCain and I and others have been a part of his working group to achieve the maximum bipartisan support obtainable on this resolution. I am confident that will be achieved. I am very confident, given the leadership of our two distinguished colleagues joining us here today, because it is important there be a solid phalanx of the House of Representatives, which will have an identical resolution, and the Senate joining together behind our President and speaking with one voice, as our President and the Secretary of State, working through the United Nations, achieving, hopefully, a resolution which will comport with the President's historic address to the United Nations, and also a resolution that will reflect the United Nations is going to stand up as an organization and live up to its charter and take on the responsibility of bringing this question of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to a conclusion so this world can be more peaceful. I thank my colleagues, most particularly the four of us who are here today. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, there are many traditions in the southland, where I am proud to have my roots. I represent the Commonwealth of Virginia. We have the saying ``a Virginia gentleman.'' Time will tell as to whether I will ever be able to earn that title. But the great Senator to my right in this Chamber, Jesse Helms, has earned many times over the title ``a gentleman from North Carolina'' and a ``gentleman of the Senate.'' I have had the privilege of working with him throughout my 24 years in this Chamber. He has been a leader and an inspiration. He has helped me and other Senators as we have joined in this magnificent Chamber time and time again to work our will, to represent our constituents, and he always reminds us that we are here for the whole Nation as United States Senators. Jesse Helms is a man of unquestioned integrity, honesty, character, wit, and wisdom. And now with his lovely wife Dorothy, they seek other challenges in life. I never think of my colleague as retiring. He is going on to other challenges, where he will apply the same passion, the same vigor, the same energy, and the same insight into those issues about which he feels so strongly. We were never in doubt as to where the senior Senator from North Carolina stood on an issue. To his everlasting credit, he learned every day he was in the Senate. I have seen him on two major issues learn more and then have the willingness and the courage to stand here and look us in the eye and say, ``I am going to change my position.'' For years, he was concerned--and rightfully so--about the United Nations. But then he decided that he would lead the effort in the Senate, with his Democrat colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee, to see that this Nation lived up to its financial obligations and in other ways gave support to the United Nations. I never thought I would witness Jesse Helms going to the United Nations. He asked me to go with him. I said to myself this will be a moment in history, and off we went with several other colleagues. We had a series of meetings in which we freely discussed the issues and, step by step, some of those financial problems have been resolved because of the leadership of this fine man. On the subject of Africa, there was no prejudice in his heart. There was concern about whether we could expend funds for that very troubled continent, that troubled population, afflicted by disproportionate levels of disease and poverty and AIDS. Senator Helms decided he was going to do what he could to help those people, and that he did, particularly with regard to AIDS. It takes a big man, a giant in the Senate, to do the things he has done. I will close with this recollection. I remember one year being in session up to the eve of Christmas. I cannot remember the exact day, but Christmas was coming. Tempers in this Chamber were flaring. There was Alan Simpson, a marvelous Senator from Wyoming. Suddenly, he and Jesse Helms had a bit of a disagreement. As a younger Senator, I was way back there. The disagreement occurred somewhere right in here. I watched Helms and I watched Simpson. Simpson was noted for his humor. But those two went at it. But the bounds of dignity were always maintained when those two Senators--this time of the same party--had such a strong disagreement. And many times I followed this great Senator as we were leaving the Chamber to go back to our offices, and I watched him stop and talk to the pages, those who provide the infrastructure in this institution, who work with their hands, who do other jobs. He would always find time for those to share with him a thought and he would share with them kind words and kind gestures. My dear friend and his lovely wife and family have many wonderful years ahead of them. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the World War II men of the USS Kidd, DD 661, a Fletcher-class destroyer which was named after Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, Sr., who was killed aboard his flagship, the USS Arizona, at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Kidd was commissioned at the New York Navy Yard in Brooklyn, New York, on April 23, 1943. She was placed under the command of Lieutenant Commander, later Admiral, Allan B. Roby. Kidd served with great distinction in the South Pacific during World War II, earning eight battle stars while participating in such historic engagements as the air raids on Wake Island, the strikes against Rabaul and Bougainville, the Gilbert Islands invasion at Tarawa, the Marshall Islands, the occupation of Aitape and Hollandia in New Guinea, the occupation of Saipan, the bombardment of Guam, the invasion of the Philippines, the raids against the Japanese home islands, and the invasion of Okinawa. On April 11, 1945, Kidd, by then affectionately known as ``The Pirate of the Pacific'', was on patrol and picket duty off of Okinawa. During a Japanese attack that day a Kamikaze struck Kidd amidship just above the water line. Thirty-eight men were killed and another fifty-five were wounded, and Kidd suffered extensive structural damage. Notwithstanding these circumstances, the crew managed to keep the ship afloat while returning fire and continuing to engage the enemy in the ongoing attack. Kidd was saved and, following major repairs, continued to serve the Nation with distinction for another twenty years. In the aftermath of World War II, the surviving men of Kidd did not forget their shipmates who perished during that epic conflict. In August of 1949, just a few years after the end of World War II, survivors of the Kamikaze attack on Kidd gathered in New York City for the solemn purpose of remembering and honoring their lost shipmates. Ever since that original gathering in 1949, for fifty-two straight years, survivors of the World War II attack on Kidd have traveled from far and wide and assembled together to pay homage to their friends and shipmates who died on April 11, 1945. This remarkable unbroken string of remembrances now extend over half a century. This weekend, the remaining survivors of the World War II crew of the USS Kidd are preparing to gather together for their 53rd consecutive annual reunion to be held here in the Washington Metropolitan Area from October 4--6, 2002. At that gathering, as in their past gatherings, these men, accompanied by their families and friends, will honor the memory of their departed shipmates. For the benefit of the historical record, the names of those men killed aboard Kidd, heroes all, were Lieutenant George B. Grieshaber, Ensign Robert A. Berwick, Seaman 1st Class Dorsey C. Bridgewater, Chief Quartermaster Addison F. Smith, Chief Water Tender Sylvester W. Hansen, Chief Steward John F. Hamilton, Gunner's Mate 1st Class Morgan A. Payne, Water Tender 1st Class James C. Carmody, Water Tender 1st Class Felix P. D'Amico, Machinist 2nd Class William M. Abernethy, Water Tender 2nd Class Jack L. Walsh, Seaman 2nd Class Eugene E. Gothreau, Baker 2nd Class Richard W. Hyde, Steward's Mate 2nd Class Solomon Thompson, Steward's Mate 2nd Class Charles E. Green, Torpedo Man 3rd Class Bernard Gutterman, Seaman 3rd Class Milford A. Faufaw, Electrician's Mate 3rd Class James N. Olen, Fireman 1st Class Charles N. Allwhite, Fireman 1st Class Clifford A. Hoeft, Fireman 1st Class Clifford E. Kemmerer, Fireman 1st Class Robert F. Walker, Seaman 1st Class John W. Canada, Jr., Seaman 1st Class Louie C. Higginbotham, Seaman 1st Class Lester B. Hodges, Seaman 1st Class Harold G. Kelsey, Seaman 1st Class George R. Kraisinger, Seaman 1st Class William J. Wall, Seaman 1st Class Lawrence Bynog, Fireman 2nd Class Fredric B. Heaton, Fireman 2nd Class Dennis M. Kornowski, Seaman 2nd Class Virgile A. Henson, Seaman 2nd Class Charles K. Jenkins, Seaman 2nd Class Bernard V. Kostelnik, Seaman 2nd Class Arthur Lee, Seaman 2nd Class Russell J. Leonard, Seaman 2nd Class John Miller, Jr., and Apprentice Seaman Darvin R. Lee. On the eve of the 53rd consecutive gathering of the surviving members of the World War II crew of the USS Kidd, I take to the floor of the Senate to recognize and honor all of the World War II men of Kidd. By their sacrifices and courageous conduct on April 11, 1945, in defending their ship and the national interests of the United States, the men of the USS Kidd demonstrated exceptional valor and courage. By their remarkable determination to keep the memory of their lost shipmates alive, as demonstrated by their continuing course of conduct over the last fifty-three years, the surviving members of the World War II crew of the USS Kidd have brought honor to themselves, to the United States Navy, and to a grateful Nation that understands better, because of the conduct of all of these men, the true meaning of faithful commitment and patriotic citizenship. A young sailor myself in 1945, I proudly ask the Senate to join me in saluting the World War II men of the USS Kidd. Their deeds and sacrifices are an untold story that should serve as an inspiration to all Americans.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, this concludes the introduction of this matter to the Senate. I thank my friend John McCain for his leadership on this issue from the very beginning, as he consulted in the process with Senator Lott and others with regard to this resolution. If those who wish to join us would kindly indicate their expressions of support to the leaders, myself, Senator McCain, and Senator Lott. Before leaving the floor, Senator Helms indicated his strong support, and in due course we will constitute the cosponsors of this resolution as we move forward. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today, with other colleagues, to support the Gramm-Miller amendment. I wish to address very specifically some provisions. The overall amendment addresses the concerns which I had very early on and are outlined in a letter to the Governmental Affairs Committee. At that time, I said to the then-chairman, in writing, I had specific concerns. This particular amendment by Gramm and Miller has taken care of those concerns. It is for that reason I lend my support. It provides the President with the authority he needs to organize our Government at this critical time to deal with these most unusual threats that are confronting our Nation today. The Presiding Officer and I are privileged to serve together on the Armed Services Committee, and he full well appreciates the diversity and the unprecedented threats that face this Nation today. I think Senators Gramm and Miller have gone about this in a very balanced way. I specifically thank the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Georgia because I approached them, asking that they include a provision in their bill which I had devised with the help of my colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, my colleague from Utah, who is in the Chamber, and my colleague from Virginia, Senator Allen. Senator Allen and Senator Bennett have taken the lead in the high-tech caucus. In the course of one of our periodic meetings on this subject, the group brought to our attention the need to have this type of indemnity legislation, and once Senator Bennett, Senator Allen, and I approached the Gramm-Miller team, they accepted this amendment. I wish to talk about it today and the importance of that amendment within the amendment that is on the floor now. The legislation I am proposing with others would authorize the President to apply basically the same indemnification authorities now available to the Secretary of Defense, such that it can be applied to a much larger number of the departments and agencies of the Federal Government, as well as State and local--as well as State and local-- governments so these entities of the Federal and State government can go about the business of contracting with our private sector and enable the contractors to have certain protections regarding the products which are the subject of the contract or the services, which products and services are directly contributing to the war on terrorism and the protection of our Nation. It is quite interesting, I find there is an urgent need for this authority. It has existed in the Department of Defense for so many years. I was privileged to serve in the Department of Defense from 1969 through 1974 as Secretary and Under Secretary of the Navy. The Presiding Officer, I think, was on active duty at that time and had an exemplary career in the military. But, for example, contractors today would not sell the chemical and biological detectors to a wider range of Federal agencies and departments, and State and local, but they can take the same product and sell it to the Department of Defense. So we are kind of caught up in interpretations of a Presidential directive, the existing law. I think we do not have the time to sort it out in the courts, and it is best to clarify it here in Congress. This is a bipartisan effort, I assure the Presiding Officer and others. Some of our Nation's top defense contractors simply cannot sell these products to the other agencies, State and Federal, today. In the meantime, our vulnerability here in the United States, in my own experience, is of great concern to me. We should give the President the option that he currently does not have of deciding whether other departments and agencies, Federal and State, should have this authority. The liability risk has been a longstanding deterrent to the private sector, freely contracting with the Department of Defense, but now wishes to broaden its contracting with other departments and agencies. Congress has acted in the past to authorize the indemnification of contracts. I find this history fascinating. For example, on December 18, 1941, just a short time after the tragic Pearl Harbor experience--2 weeks--the Congress enacted title II of the First War Powers Act of 1941. By providing authority to the President to indemnify contracts, this legislation and its successor pieces of legislation have enabled the private sector to enter into contracts that involve a substantial liability risk occasioned by their services and products. Administrations since President Franklin Roosevelt's day have used these authorities to indemnify or share the risk with defense contractors. This was required to jump-start the ``arsenal of democracy,'' as described by the President in 1941. It was true again in 1958, when the nuclear and missile programs were facilitated by the indemnification of risk associated with the use of nuclear power and highly volatile missile fuels. It is true today for technology solutions required by agencies engaged in the war against terrorism. And that is the purpose of this legislation. This war is going to be different in many ways--many ways--we cannot envision at this moment or in the future. For one, much of the Nation's homeland defense activities are going to be conducted by State and local governments. It is, thus, imperative to ensure that State and local governments can access vital antiterrorism technologies and not let the contractor be subjected to undue risk. To facilitate this, my amendment would require the establishment of a Federal contracting vehicle to which State and local governments could turn to rapidly buy antiterrorism solutions from the Federal Government. The President would also be authorized, if he deemed it necessary, to indemnify these purchases. Again, discretion rests with the President, and he, in turn, has delegated this authority to the Secretary of Defense. I presume if this legislation becomes law, he will delegate it to other heads of departments and agencies. Again, I wish to emphasize two points: One, that this authority is discretionary. The President, on a case-by-case basis, may decide whether to indemnify contracts. I expect the President will use the authority much as it has been used at the Department of Defense, carefully and thoughtfully, and only for those products the Government cannot obtain without the use of this authority. The second point I want to emphasize is that indemnification is not in conflict with any efforts to limit or cap liability. My legislation should not be seen as an alternative for tort reform, but merely as one tool that can be used by the President to ensure that vitally needed technologies necessary for homeland defense are placed into the hands of those who need them. During World War II and all subsequent wars, conflicts and emergencies in which the U.S. has been involved, we have needed domestic contractors to be innovative, resourceful and ready to support efforts at home and abroad. In 1941, the Congress wanted contractors to know that if they were willing to engage in unusually hazardous activities for the national defense, then the U.S. Government would address the potential liability exposure associated with the conduct of such activities. Our position should be no different now. I conclude with remarks about another matter connected with the Gramm-Miller amendment. There are many aspects in the creation of this new department of homeland defense that are unprecedented. Contentious civil service issues have largely driven the debate on homeland security in this Chamber in the past days and weeks. Over 170,000 employees from 22 agencies will be transferred to the new Department of Homeland Security, including an estimated 43,000 Federal employees represented by 18 different unions. Since President Bush proposed the creation of homeland security, I have been involved in discussions with a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with the Federal employee unions and their members about the potential consequences to Federal employees. In order to successfully achieve this complex collaboration, I recognize the importance of the President's request for increased flexibility in managing the new Department. The uncertainty, however, of the administration's intentions with additional labor and management flexibility has fostered mistrust, understandably so, among these Federal employees. The administration in no way should put into question basic labor rights and civil service protections for these employees. The administration cannot ignore the impact this is having on morale, not only on the employees being transferred, but throughout the Federal workforce. With no firm commitment from the administration that collective bargaining rights will not be weakened outside of reasons directly related to national security, I cannot blame these Federal employees for being anxious. I can personally attest to the dedication of civil service employees throughout the Federal Government. There has never been reason to question that during a national crisis, Federal employees perform their duties first, setting aside personal grievances. Federal employees have been relocated, reassigned and worked long hours under strenuous circumstances with no complaints since the September 11 attacks. Their loyalty is first and foremost to their country. Federal employees have proven this time and again. I have carefully considered several compromise proposals on the civil service provisions in the homeland security legislation. I am strongly concerned about initiatives that would weaken or interfere with the President's authority under current law to exclude Federal employees from collective bargaining if those employees are primarily involved in national security work. Every President, since it became law in 1978, has exercised this authority in the interest of national security. There can be no argument that this new department's primary purpose and focus is protecting our national security interests. That said, I would strongly encourage the administration to engage in further discussions with the Federal employee unions and assuage some of their concerns. Information should be available on an ongoing basis concerning the administration's actions and intentions regarding creation and management of the new department. It is my hope that before the House of Representatives and Senate vote on the final version of homeland security legislation, some provisions can be agreed upon to lessen the tension, the fear that exists in the civil service ranks. I have been privileged to have lived my life in Virginia, the greater metropolitan area, and have had the opportunity to be in the civil service in a number of positions, all the way from a letter carrier and forest firefighter, in 1943-1944, and service in the military to Secretary of the Navy, where I was privileged to have, as a part of my department, several hundred thousand Federal service employees. I guarantee you, the ranks of the Federal civil service employees are no less patriotic than the ranks of the military. They are fine, loyal, hard-working Americans. I am hopeful the distinguished manager of the bill and others can listen and take into consideration their concerns and somehow put into this bill those provisions which will lessen the fear and the concern among these brave citizens in our country.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his very thoughtful remarks. If I may say, in conversations in the presence of the President of the United States on this subject and the importance of homeland security--and I have attended several meetings along with other colleagues--this matter has been raised. I detect in the President no concern that Government employees are secondhand citizens, but they are entitled to their rights. That is the purpose of this legislative body, to bridge the gaps to the extent we can and protect all the people. I thank my colleague and yield the floor.