Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I do not intend to speak more than 15 minutes, if that much. And my colleague has indicated he will speak about the same amount of time. So I would say to Senators we ought to be voting within 30 minutes. Last July, almost 4 months ago, the Senate Appropriations Committee completed action on all 13 of our appropriations bills, each on a bipartisan unanimous vote. These bills restored essential funding for programs that the administration proposed to cut. We provided $1.1 billion more than the President requested for veterans medical care. We restored the $8.6 billion cut proposed by the President in highway funding. The President proposed only a 1-percent increase for education programs. He would turn the No Child Left Behind bill into another unfunded mandate. Our bill would have provided a 6-percent increase for education, including key funding to reduce class size. We included sufficient funding to keep Amtrak operating. We restored over $1 billion of cuts that the President proposed for State and local law enforcement programs. We fully funded the President's proposed increases for homeland security programs, but we provided the funds through existing programs that our nation's fire and police organizations support. We provided a significant increase for the Securities and Exchange Commission in order to investigate corporate fraud. We provided $400 million for election reform. Sadly, the President believes that these increases represent wasteful and unnecessary spending. He worked with the House Republican leadership to shut the appropriations process down. The House has not passed a regular appropriations bill in nearly 17 weeks. By contrast, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported all thirteen bills by July 25th, the earliest date that this was accomplished since 1988. However, without the House-passed bills, our process stalled. The Senate Appropriations Committee, on a bipartisan basis, believes in making responsible choices. It believes in governing. The President, sadly, appears to believe more in rhetoric and political posturing. This year, only two of the thirteen appropriations bills have been signed into law. The House has voted for and the President has supported a fifth continuing resolution that would extend appropriations for the domestic side of the government until January 11. This is the worst performance of the Congress in attending to one of its most basic responsibilities, the funding of the government, since 1976 when the beginning of the fiscal year was moved to October 1. Why did the President precipitate this unprecedented failure? Despite the fact that Congress approved the President's 13 percent, $45 billion, increase for defense programs and his 25 percent, $5 billion, increase for homeland defense programs, the President believes that the 3.5 percent increase for domestic programs that the Senate Appropriations Committee approved, was excessive. The President proposed to virtually freeze domestic programs that were not for homeland defense. The Senate Appropriations Committee provided $13 billion more for domestic programs, barely enough to cover inflation. The President has forced the entire domestic side of the government to operate on automatic pilot at fiscal year 2002 levels for over one quarter of the fiscal year. In a bit of pre-election posturing, the President's Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said on October 20th, ``For the first time in probably a decade, Congress has left town before an election without going on a spending spree using taxpayers' money. There's a new sheriff in town, and he's dedicated to fiscal discipline. And Congress for the first time in a decade has listened to the new sheriff.'' That new sheriff is shooting the country in the foot with his Administration's shortsighted political games. But, were the items that the Senate Appropriations Committee funded with the $13 billion increase a spending spree? No. With great fanfare, the President signed numerous authorization bills this year that authorize increase spending on important programs. Last January, he signed the No Child Left Behind Act in order to invest additional resources in important education programs for our children. Last May, he signed a border security bill to strengthen glaring weaknesses in our border security. Last July, he signed the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act authored by Senators Kennedy and Frist in order to provide critical resources to State and local governments to improve the capacity of hospitals, clinics and emergency medical personnel to respond to biological or chemical attacks. Last July, he signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to combat corporate fraud. In October, he signed the election reform bill in order to help State governments overhaul the nation's electoral system. Yet, when it came time to actually fund these important initiatives, the President worked to postpone action on the FY 2003 spending bills. He worked with the House Republican leadership to force the funding of the entire domestic side of our government onto a continuing resolution. Instead of making careful choices, the President has forced the government to operate on automatic pilot, leaving the legislation that he signed with such fanfare, to operate without the increased resources authorized by those laws. The Senate is now considering a fifth continuing resolution to extend funding for the eleven bills that fund domestic agencies through January 11, 2003. This puts the entire domestic side of the government, including homeland security programs, on automatic pilot at the levels approved for FY 2002. You must watch what this President does, not what he says. What he has done, is to force the government to operate on automatic pilot. What he has said bears very little resemblance to what he has done. The U.S. Senate is reputed to be the world's greatest deliberative body. In ``Democracy in America,'' French visitor Alexis de Tocqueville described this body as an institution ``composed of eloquent advocates, distinguished generals, wise magistrates, and statesmen of note, whose arguments would do honor to the most remarkable parliamentary debates of Europe.'' That was the Senate of 1831--an institution that prided itself on its deliberate, careful, judicious debates; an institution that possessed, as once the Senate of ancient Rome possessed, a great firmness, anchored by oratory that was as brilliant as the immense gold eagle atop the dais of the old Senate Chamber. But the Senate that de Tocqueville watched in 1831, I am sad to say, is a far, far cry from the institution that the American people have observed over the past few months. Instead, the American people have seen a body more concerned about politics than substance; more concerned about party than about the people; more concerned about the state of the midterm elections than the state of the union. President Bush came to Washington in 2001 and promised to change the tone in Washington. Instead, the President has sent an unambiguous message to Congress on virtually every major policy issue. His message--my way, or the highway. No room for debate. No room for deliberation. The nation needs to pursue energy independence, but the President has said my way or the highway. Our elderly need a prescription drug benefit, the President has said my way or the highway. The Director of Homeland Security says our nation is facing an imminent risk of a terrorist attack, but when it comes to homeland security legislation, the President said my way or the highway. Similarly, the Congress has been manacled by the President and the House Republican leadership in its efforts to fund the operations of government. On September 17, I came to the floor and I warned Members that the White House was leading an effort to stall the appropriations process. At that time, the House had not taken up an appropriations bill for eight weeks. I complained that the Administration seemed to believe that the federal government is nothing more than a ``Monopoly'' board, with the President living on Park Place, while the rest of the country relegated to Mediterranean Avenue. In those remarks, I noted that Lawrence Lindsay, the President's principal economic advisor, had estimated that the costs of the war in Iraq would be $100 to $200 billion but that spending at that level would have no impact on the economy. I stressed my concern that the White House is willing to put the entire domestic side of the government on automatic pilot in a long-term continuing resolution over their insistence that the $13 billion difference between the House topline for discretionary spending and the Senate topline is, in their view, excessive spending. I noted that the House Republican leadership, at the bidding of the White House, is willing to force all of the domestic agencies to operate at current rates over their objection to the Senate's wanting to provide a 3-percent increase for domestic health, education, environmental, law enforcement and other programs, barely enough to cover inflation. On September 24, I came to the Senate floor and I warned Members about the dire consequences of forcing veterans health care programs, education programs, transportation programs to operate at last year's spending levels. On October 2, I returned to the floor and I asked the White House why they had turned a deaf ear to the needs of the American people; and why the fundamental duties of the President and the Congress to make careful and responsible choices about how to spend the taxpayers' hard- earned dollars had been put on automatic pilot. For months, the President called on Congress to send him the Defense Appropriations bill. The Congress fully cooperated with the President in this regard. Congress sent the President the Defense and Military Construction bills at levels $800 million above the original House bills. There is no doubt that the Congress and the President can work together. When the President asked for the necessary Defense funding, the Congress cooperated. But it's a far different story when it comes to the domestic programs of the United States Government. The rest of the appropriations bills remain on hold, stuck in the mud of election-year politics. The President has sent the message that he will be satisfied to put the entire domestic side of the government on automatic pilot. He has already signed four continuing resolutions that fund the government at the levels in last year's laws. Many members of Congress, myself included, are proud to wear the label of ``defense hawk.'' But, in this new age of terrorism, being a defense hawk must also mean being a ``hawk'' on domestic defense. It must mean defending and funding domestic initiatives that will make Americans safer and more secure in their own backyards just as vociferously as defending and funding the production of military aircraft, and missiles, and tanks. The White House stall on the remaining appropriations bills means that one front of our two-front war on terrorism will be provided with funds to do battle, but the other front will be shortchanged. If we fail to pass the rest of our appropriations bills, all of our efforts here, on American soil, to make more secure our states, cities and neighborhoods, will be getting short shrift. Many on the other side of the aisle have claimed that this fiscal train wreck is the result of the Senate's not passing a budget resolution. That may make for good campaign rhetoric, but every Senator knows that a budget resolution is not necessary to pass appropriations bills. Congress was able to pass appropriations bills for nearly 200 years without a budget resolution. The Budget Act specifically provides authority for the House to move forward on the appropriations bills in the absence of a budget resolution. Sadly, the House Republilcan leadership, at the prodding of our ``my-way-or-the-highway President'', chose instead to shut the appropriations process down. The President insisted on a topline of $749 billion for the thirteen discretionary bills and has not budged. He seems satisfied to put the government on automatic pilot. No choices. No judgment. No opportunity for the Congress to reflect the needs of the American people in its consideration of the thirteen bills. No, let's just put the government on automatic pilot. Government by formula, rather than government by choice. According to news reports, the President considers himself to be an education President. He speaks before Veterans groups. He speaks about combating the war on terrorism by strengthening the FBI's investigative capabilities and shoring up security at the Nation's airports, ports, and borders. But talk is cheap. The necessary funding for these priority programs is not. Where is the White House cooperation when it comes to priority domestic funding, especially those relating to homeland security and the plight of our veterans and the state of our education programs? Remember, watch what he does, not what he says. Mr. President, as the days and weeks slip by and the domestic programs of the Federal Government limp along on autopilot under the provisions of the continuing resolutions, the four-million veterans who rely on the Veterans Administration for their health care are having to worry about whether that care will be available to them. Maybe they are not sleeping too well. While the weeks slip away, the 11,420 FBI agents who are supposed to be combating the war on terrorism are having to wonder whether they have the necessary resources to fight that war. Maybe we all ought not to sleep too well. While the weeks slip away, the government's effort to root out corporate fraud is being put on hold. Watch what they do, not what they say. While the weeks slip away, the President appears to be satisfied to forget his No Child Left Behind promise and turn the commitment to educating America's children into another unfunded mandate, another unfulfilled promise. The President is quick to champion homeland security, but his budget priorities reflect a different agenda. The administration's adamant refusal to move off of the dime in these appropriations discussions could jeopardize homeland security, no matter when or how any new Department of Homeland Security is created. Recently, former Senators Rudman and Hart released a report that concluded that the American transportation, water, food, power, communications, and banking systems remain easy targets for terrorist attacks. According to the report, ``A year after 9/11, America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil. In all likelihood, the next attack will result in even greter casualties and widespread disruption to our lives and economy.'' The report highlighted the vulnerabilities created by: the minuscule fraction of trains, ships, trucks and containers that are searched for weapons of mass destruction; poor radio communications and equipment and training for police, fire and emergency medical personnel; inadequate coordination and focus on threats to food safety; lack of lab capacity to test for biological or chemical contaminants; and insufficient sharing of intelligence information with State and local governments on potential terrorist threats. Not only has President Bush failed to lead the nation in addressing this vulnerability, he has, in fact, actively opposed efforts to provide the resources necessary to address these significant weaknesses. When it comes to homeland defense, the President talks a good game, but puts no points on the board for our needs. Under pressure from the White House, since September 11, 2001, critical funding to address the specific concerns identified in the Rudman/Hart report have been squeezed out of spending bills considered by the Congress. The Congress has succeeded in approving $15 billion for homeland defense programs in December of 2001 and July of 2002, $5.3 billion above the President's request. However, on several occasions in November, December and July, the President threatened to veto legislation that would have provided nearly $24 billion more for critical homeland security programs, including $15 billion from the stimulus bill and $8.9 billion from Fiscal Year 2002 bills reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee. In August of 2002, the President chose to terminate $2.5 billion of funding that Congress approved for homeland security programs in the Fiscal Year 2002 supplemental. He turned his back to funds that would have helped to save lives. In October of 2002, the White House took credit for forcing the entire domestic side of the government to operate by automatic pilot under a continuing resolution of last year's funding levels. That means that agencies like the FBI, the Customs Service, the new Transportation Security Administration, the Coast Guard, FEMA and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, agencies that are critical participants in securing our homeland, have no new resources to address known homeland security vulnerabilities. This postponed over $5 billion of increases approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee for homeland security programs. When the President called on Congress to send him the Defense bills, Congress responded. But, how about the other eleven bills? We hear no call from the President to send him the remaining bills. The silence is palpable. Under the long term continuing resolution, the veterans health care system will be funded at a level that is $2.4 billion short of the level proposed in the Senate passed FY2003 VA-HUD bill. There are currently over 280,000 veterans on waiting lists for VA medical care. Under a long-term continuing resolution, the waiting lists will more than double. VA will schedule 2.5 million fewer outpatient clinic appointments for veterans, and 235,000 fewer veterans will be treated in VA hospitals. Thousands of FEMA fire grants, grants to resolve the interoperable emergency communications equipment problem, grants to upgrade emergency operations centers, grants to upgrade search and rescue teams, grants for emergency responder training and grants to improve state and local planning would be funded under the Senate's appropriations bills. But the Administration insists on operating the domestic programs of the Federal Government under the autopilot provisions of the continuing resolution which are mindless, formulaic, and without any trace of human judgment. Has the President asked the Congress to send him the VA/HUD Appropriations bill that funds these critical veterans and homeland defense programs? No. Many of the requirements of the Transportation Security Act require large expenditures in the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2003. Local airports are required to purchase explosive detection equipment to keep bombs from being placed on our airliners. To do that, they need help. Our highway program is facing a $4.1 billion cut in spending that could reduce jobs by over 160,000. Could our economy use those jobs? Amtrak could go bankrupt, throwing 23,000 people out of work and eliminating train service to 1.7 million citizens per month. Merry Christmas Amtrak workers from the White House. The Senate Transportation bill addresses these concerns. Has the President asked Congress to send him the Transportation bill to fund these programs? No. Federal funds also are needed to hire new federal screeners and to make our nation's seaports more secure. But this cannot be accomplished under a continuing resolution. The INS is at a critical juncture in developing a comprehensive Entry/Exit system to protect our nation's borders. The Senate bill provides $362 million for this initiative. But the Administration's inflexibility means that this program is frozen under the provisions of a continuing resolution just like our progress on protecting our borders--frozen! The President signed an authorization bill to help root out corporate fraud, but the continuing resolution would deprive the Securities and Exchange Commission of $300 million contained in the Senate bill to investigate corporate fraud. Let the fraud flourish for just a little while longer. Has the President asked the Congress to send him the Commerce/Justice/State bill that funds those programs? No. The Customs Service is scheduled to hire more than 620 agents and inspectors to serve at the nation's high-risk land and sea points of entry. The Senate provides the funding for the Customs Service. But, again, the Administration seems to be satisfied with government by autopilot. A continuing resolution does not fund new agents for our border. Has the President asked the Congress to send him the Treasury/ General Government bill to fund that border security program? No. Without additional funding for security at our nuclear facilities, the Department of Energy will have to lay off 240 security guards at nuclear facilities in Tennessee and Texas. These 240 guards are the first line of defense between our enemies and a significant portion of our nation's nuclear material. Has the President asked us to send him the Energy and Water bill? No. By forcing the government to operate on autopilot, the Administration wants the nation to fight terrorism with a wink and a nod. Last month, Congress passed landmark election reform legislation. $3.8 billion is authorized for grants to state and local governments to improve our election systems. Yet, there is no funding for this initiative under a continuing resolution. Has the President asked the Congress to send him legislation to actually fund these new election reform grants? No. Last year, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act with bipartisan support. But, this law becomes nothing but an unfunded mandate on our local governments if the federal funding is not there for states to implement the new act. It takes money to reduce class size, to provide teacher training, to invest in new technology and to develop meaningful assessment tools. The No Child Left Behind Act requires States to ensure that all teachers teaching in core academic subjects are ``highly qualified'' by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. But, the President's budget included no new money for teacher training. The Senate bill would increase funding for Teacher Quality State Grants by $250 million, for a total of $3.1 billion. The President's budget would increase funds for education by just $367 million--less than a 1% increase. That level gets an ``F'' in my grade book. The bill passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee, meanwhile, would increase education funds by $3.2 billion, or 6.5%. Has the President asked Congress to send him the Labor/HHS/Education bill? No. Here in the Senate, Senator Stevens and I sat down and worked out a topline for discretionary spending that reflected our views of the level of spending that would be required to produce thirteen bipartisan, fiscally responsible bills. We then followed through and the Senate Appropriations Committee produced all thirteen bills by the end of July consistent with that allocation. All thirteen annual appropriations bills cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee with fifteen Democratic members and fourteen Republican members voting aye. There is nothing partisan about these Appropriations bills. I worked with my Republican colleagues, led by that very able Senior Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens, to make sure that these bills represented a consensus of our members, both Democratic and Republican. There are no gimmicks. The bills have been available for all Members to see for over sixteen weeks. Yet, the lack of action in the House has shut down progress in the Senate as well. Senators should know that frustration with the lack of progress on the FY 2003 appropriations bills is bipartisan and bicameral. In a recent, widely distributed memorandum to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young said, ``A long-term continuing resolution that funds government operations at FY 2002 levels would have disastrous impacts on the war on terror, homeland security, and other important government responsibilities. It would also be fiscally irresponsible.'' All it would have taken to move the FY 2003 bills was some degree of cooperation between the House and Senate leadership, but the White House thwarted any chance of a compromise being reached. That's right. The White House--the Bush White House--the one that promised to change the tone in Washington, thwarted any chance of a compromise being reached. They did not want the work to be done. The White House spinners wanted to spin and weave their tangled web. We ought to be more concerned about how our actions will affect the course of the country than we are about how our actions or inactions will affect the direction of our polls. We ought to be more concerned about the price the people will pay for our actions or inactions than we are about the price our parties will pay at the voting booth. We ought to be more concerned about raising public awareness than we are about raising campaign funding. We ought to be more concerned about doing our jobs than we are about keeping our jobs. Now, because of the White House's unwillingness to put what is best for the American people ahead of what is best for our political parties, the Congress is forced to pass a continuing resolution to fund the operations of government until the 108th Congress. The Congress will forsake one of its most important functions--to ensure funding for the operations of the federal government--because is could not reason with this partisan, partisan White House. Call me old-fashioned, but I remember a time when compromises were crafted by individuals who had differing views on an issue. But with this President, it is my way or the highway. The Senate must not blindly follow, in the name of party unity or under the yoke of political pressure, a short-sighted path that ultimately undermines our Constitutional processes. He could not stay off of the campaign trail long enough to negotiate and help us pass these bills. Why isn't the Administration up here working in a bipartisan and flexible fashion with the leadership of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to facilitate the processing of the appropriations bills that fund domestic programs so that the necessary funding can be provided to the veterans, the FBI, the education programs, the homeland security programs at the Federal, State, and local levels? Why the giant stall, the big freeze, the cold shoulder? This Administration is setting quite a track record. Unfortunately for the American people, it is not a record on which to look back with pride. It is a record that rejects reasonableness in favor of stubbornness. It is a record that rejects progress in favor of partisanship. It is a record that puts politics ahead of the American people. I, for one, can not forget what is important to America. I recognize, as do many members of this body, the critical nature of these appropriations bills to the future progress and security of this nation. I recognize the importance of these appropriations bills to the farmers, to the teachers and their students, and to the veterans. I recognize the importance of these bills to future breakthroughs in medical research and cancer treatments. I recognize the importance of these bills to our nation's energy independence and to our transportation network. I can only pray that the Creator will see fit to protect us from the plots of twisted souls who lurk in the shadows, and I can only hope that in January, either our shame or our fear or both will compel us to act. I have very strong feelings of gratitude for my colleague, Senator Stevens, the ranking member, who has worked so closely with me. And I am especially appreciative for all of the cooperation and bipartisanship that has been shown by the members of this committee. We have a committee of 29 members--15 Democrats, 14 Republicans. On all of these measures, we have reported the bills on a bipartisan basis without any partisan differences within the committee. So I have many reasons to thank the ranking member, Mr. Ted Stevens, former chairman of the committee. I want to take this opportunity to thank him, and to also thank the other members of the committee. I also want to thank staff on both sides of the committee. We have excellent staff that works with the Members. And I can only express my very deepest appreciation to the staff and to the membership. I urge the Members of the Senate to vote as they see fit on this continuing resolution. I shall support it, although I am not entirely pleased that we have been forced to engage in this exercise in passing continuing resolutions. But be that as it may, we do have to fund the operations of the Government. So I shall vote for the continuing resolution. The House has not taken up an appropriations bill for 8 weeks. When I came to the floor on September 17 and warned Members that the White House was leading an effort to stall the appropriations process, that process has been stalled. We sent two appropriations bills to the President. That is it. Eleven appropriations bill out of the 13 have not be sent to the President's desk. This is because the House Republican leadership has put the brakes on and has simply refused to let the Appropriations Committee in the House move the bills forward. The leadership on the House side has simply refused to have that body act on the appropriations bills that had been reported by the Appropriations Committee in the House. That is most unfortunate. I yield the floor in the event that my distinguished counterpart, Mr. Stevens, wishes to say whatever he wishes. He may have the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall be brief and my colleague, Mr. Stevens----

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I also want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Bill Young, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. I enjoy working with Chairman Young. He has always been very cooperative and very gracious. He is a very courteous Member of that body, and is always very kind and considerate of me as I have labored to act as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate upon more than one occasion. I also thank Dave Obey, the ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee. Dave Obey brings a great deal of experience and knowledge and is a very articulate and forceful member of the House Appropriations Committee. I enjoy working with Dave Obey, as I enjoy working with Bill Young. It has been a pleasure to work with the other members of the House Appropriations Committee on both sides--Republicans and Democrats. They have always been very nice to me. This year I will relinquish my responsibilities as chairman and will begin work with my former chairman, Mr. Stevens, and the other members of the committee as we go forward into the new year. I believe we will have difficult times ahead. But I have always been able to work with Senator Stevens. He has always been very nice to me, and very considerate, as has been his staff. While I hesitate to feel that we must probably look forward to a more difficult year in the future than we have in the past, I can only say that I hope Senator Stevens and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle in that committee enjoy a wonderful Thanksgiving, a lovely Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And may God look down upon us and help us in our struggles, as we will continue to do our best, with limited resources, in the forthcoming year. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, wishes some time.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may just respond: First of all, I thank the distinguished Senator, who is the majority whip in this body. I deeply appreciate what he has said. I appreciate very much what he has said. May I say, in turn, that the American people don't owe me anything. But I will say this, that the American people are listening. And with respect to the resolution dealing with a war with Iraq, the American people were listening. The American people heard what we said. As a result of speeches--I made two or three speeches in that instance--as a result of those two or three speeches that I made, my office received 21,000 telephone calls, and my office received over 50,000 e-mails. That is an indication that there is somebody out there listening, somebody cares, somebody is paying attention. That is gratifying to me. So somebody heard. And I don't pay all that much attention to the polls. I don't think they ask the right questions. What are the right questions? I don't know what the right questions are. But those polls reflect responses to questions. And whether they are the right questions or the questions that ought to be asked, I cannot say. But I can say the American people do listen. And somebody has to fulfill the duty Woodrow Wilson was speaking about when he said the informing function of the legislative branch is as important, if not more so, than the legislative function. I thank the Senator. I am well paid. When Plato was about to pass away from this earthly sphere, he said: I thank the Gods that I was born a man. He said: I thank the Gods that I was born a Greek. And he said: I am grateful to the Gods for the fact that I live--I live in the same era in which Sophocles lived. So, I am thankful to God, and to my angel mother and my father, and to the people of West Virginia, for the fact that I have had this great privilege to work in this body, now, for 44 years and I have been able to contribute. God gives me my faculties almost as they were 50 years ago, except for my feet. I was always told the first place will be your feet; your feet and legs will give way. I am finding that to be pretty true. But I thank heaven that I was able to be here, to say what I have been able to say about the resolution dealing with Iraq and the homeland security legislation. I think we have performed a service. I said what I thought. I am on no man's payroll. I am on the people's payroll. And I wear no man's collar but my own. That may be kind of a small collar. But, anyhow, I do what I think. I could leave here any moment and get just as big a check as I get as being a Senator because I have paid in the system, now, 50 years this coming January 3. I am doing what I want to do. I don't have to do this. I probably ought to be home with my wife. We will be married, in another 6 months, 66 years, if the Good Lord lets me live. But I do think the Senator from Nevada, has made a tremendous contribution himself. He has listened to what we had to say, to what Paul Sarbanes and I and the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, and others have said. We have warned about this measure. We have not been in agreement with the administration in connection with this homeland security agency. We think we have legislated too fast. We think we have been in too big a hurry. We think we have paid too much attention to the polls, and that we ought to have taken more time in this body. It is said to be the greatest deliberative body in the history of the world. It hasn't been very deliberative in this case. But I am glad that, although the intent was to pass this bill in a hurry--I was told down at White House, I say to the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes--I went down there at the invitation of the President. I am not invited very often down there. But on this occasion the President invited me down. He said: I have got to go to St. Louis. I can only be here a few minutes. So we had a picture taken. All the cameras came in and took pictures. Then he sat down and said: I have this package here. I thank the congressional leaders for their input into this package. I scratched my head. What input is he talking about? I knew the congressional leaders had not had one ounce of input into it--not one. This thing was patched together down in the bowels of the White House by four eminent public servants--not quite perhaps up to the caliber of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Who else was on that committee that wrote the Declaration of Independence? Robert Livingston. And who else? There was John Adams, and one more: Roger Sherman. So they weren't quite up to that caliber. But this bill was the egg that was hatched down at the White House. I can just picture them walking around there with their shadows on the walls of the subterranean caverns, walking around with lanterns or candles. And they hatched this great idea down there all of a sudden to get ahead of this Mack truck that was coming down upon them fast in the appropriations bills which provided that the Director of Homeland Security would have to be confirmed by the Senate. The purpose of that was, as Senator Stevens and I intended, Mr. Director, when the Senate confirms you, you will come before the Senate Appropriations Committee. So much for that. The thing that is being missed probably most in this deliberation is the fact that the Appropriations Committee and the Senate and the Congress have appropriated moneys for homeland security that will make the country far more safe than will this piece of legislation. It is going to take a year or 2 years for this legislation to be implemented and to get this thing going. In the meantime, the people who are now out there on the borders, who are protecting the nuclear facilities of the country, the food lines, and the clean water are the same people who will be here a year or two from now when this agency is supposed to be full blown. But the President has a year in which to send up his plan as to how this organization is to be implemented. Imagine that--a year. He has a year. In the meantime, I am afraid that the people who are out there now at midday and midnight working to secure the safety of the American people will be distracted. They are going to be worrying about where their offices are going to be; What is going to be the label over my office? Where will my typewriter be? Where is the telephone going to be? What is going to be the vision and the objective of this new agency? These people are going to be distracted. I am afraid that is what gives the terrorist a good opportunity to work havoc in some way. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada for his kind words. I also thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont who summed up in a few words, in 5 minutes, what I could say in 30 minutes, the very good reasons that we should oppose this bill. I admire him for that. I admire him for his courage, his pluck, and for his good sense. He has made my speech for me. I can just sit down. I thank the Senator from Vermont. I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas for his unlimited patience and for his consideration and always for his good humor. I yield while he speaks.

Mr. BYRD. I promised to yield 5 minutes of my time to Mr. Jeffords, after which I would yield for whatever time the Senator from Kansas desires, after which, then, I will speak.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on another matter, it was just over one year ago, on November 12, 2001, that Afghanistan's government of religious extremists fled Kabul. The rule of the Taliban soon collapsed in the rest of the country, and a new government, endorsed by the United Nations, took shape. Despite this new government, the United States still has more than 8,000 troops in Afghanistan performing a number of important missions, from tracking down al-Qaida terrorists who have taken to the hills to providing security to the new Afghan President. In other words, from tracking down al-Qaida terrorists, who have taken to the hills on the one hand, to providing security to the new Afghan President on the other hand. But the situation in Afghanistan is anything but stable. Our troops still face hit-and-run attacks from al-Qaida and Taliban fighters. The leadership of the new Afghan government has been targeted for assassination. Warlords that control portions of Afghanistan's countryside have questionable allegiance to the central government. Two million Afghan refugees have returned to their homes in the past year, many finding that their homes had been destroyed by war and their fields ravaged by drought. But with the Administration gearing up for a new war in Iraq, important questions must be asked. What is our plan for Afghanistan? How great is the risk that we will lose the peace after winning a war in a poor, landlocked Central Asian country? Is the potential for war with Iraq shifting our attention from unfinished business in Afghanistan? Recent press reports on the situation in Afghanistan are not encouraging. On November 8, the Washington Post carried an article which quotes the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, as saying that we have ``lost a little momentum'' in tracking down terrorists in Afghanistan. With al Qaeda adapting to our military tactics, the report continues, the Pentagon is now debating whether to emphasize reconstruction efforts at the expense of military operations. Such a shift in mission should not be taken lightly. Unless clear goals are laid out for the rehabilitation of Afghanistan and a sensible strategy is enunciated to achieve those ends, our nation could find its feet sinking into the quicksand that is Afghanistan. I was in Afghanistan 47 years ago. I went to Afghanistan as a member of the subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I saw enough of Afghanistan to convince me at that time that it was very difficult to subjugate that country. Since then, the Soviets tried and failed. Before then, the British tried and they failed. We have already spent over $20 billion in Afghanistan, and we still don't have Osama bin Laden. We are a long way from winning that war, if that is what we are trying to do. Let us not forget our recent, tragic history with nation building, such as our attempts to pacify the chaos of Somalia in the early 1990s. We should also not forget that in 1979, the Soviet Union grabbed control of Kabul in little more than a day, but spent the next nine years trying to extend its control to the rest of the country. Those people are not easy to handle. Today, the United States has no clear goals or sensible strategy for how to work with our allies to rebuild Afghanistan. Instead of a clear plan of action, we hear lip service about a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. Start sinking money into that bottomless pit. Such grand promises, if left unfulfilled, would send the wrong message to our allies and the Afghan people about our commitment to seeing that that country does not again become a haven for terrorists. The Administration has already sent confusing messages to Congress about its commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan. On August 13, 2002, the President refused to designate as emergency spending $174 million in humanitarian aid for Afghanistan, which was contained in the Fiscal Year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act. By refusing to designate those funds as an emergency, the President did not allow the funds to be spent as Congress intended. While the President refused to spend that money, he has publicly promised $300 million in foreign aid to Afghanistan for fiscal year 2003. However, Congress has not received any such request. As the committee report for the Fiscal Year 2003 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, as reported unanimously from the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 18, states: The Committee is, therefore, perplexed that, despite calls for a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan and the critical importance to U.S. national security, the administration did not submit a formal fiscal year 2003 budget request for Afghanistan. The Committee has been informally advised that the administration plans to spend approximately $98,000,000 for Afghanistan in funds from the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act. If the administration fails to back up its promises of aid with actual dollars, how are we ever going to complete our mission in Afghanistan? We ought to be reasonable with our promises, but once we make a commitment, this nation should put our money where our mouth is. It is clear that the United States must do more to focus the international community on creating a concrete plan of action for rebuilding Afghanistan. But the first step in creating this plan is to get the administration's attention off of Iraq just long enough to give serious consideration to the problems in Afghanistan. To that end, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has reported a bill to authorize $3.3 billion in aid for Afghanistan. This bill was passed by the Senate last week. While I share with the authors of the bill the great concern about the potential for Afghanistan to slide back into chaos and disorder, I have serious reservations about several provisions of this bill. First, the bill authorizes $3.3 billion in foreign aid for Afghanistan with no indication of why this figure was proposed. It is important to understand that the authorization of those funds does not actually allow the U.S. Government to spend a single dime for Afghanistan. It takes an appropriations bill to spend that money. As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the committee that is expected to come up with the cash to fund such an authorization, I do not understand how this figure of $3.3 billion was reached. I am left with the impression that the bill in question authorizes these billions of dollars simply to send a message that rebuilding Afghanistan is an important task. Second, as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I am not sure where Congress would find the funds to fulfill the $3.3 billion commitment to Afghanistan. Will the administration support cutting back on some of our foreign aid programs in order to send money to Afghanistan? Or will the administration propose to increase our foreign aid spending in order to fund this new aid package? Without the cooperation of the administration, it would be difficult to appropriate the full amount of the funds that are authorized by this bill. As I am sure the sponsors of the bill would agree, the last thing we need are more empty promises to help the people of Afghanistan. Third, the Afghanistan aid bill contains a sense of the Congress provision that encourages the President to work to expand the U.N. peacekeeping mission now underway in Kabul to include the whole of Afghanistan. Right now, the United States is not a participant in that peacekeeping mission. It is not clear what role our troops would have in such an expanded peacekeeping mission, but Congress should be careful not to endorse the commitment of our soldiers to such a mission before we have an understanding of what that commitment might entail, such as how many troops might be involved, how long they might be there, and what goals must be achieved before withdrawal. Finally, while this bill pushes for more aid and more peacekeepers for Afghanistan, we are still without a plan or strategy for our involvement in that country. The administration needs to work with our allies and the United Nations to produce an understandable strategy that will address the reconstruction needs of Afghanistan, while sharing the costs among all countries that have an interest in the peace and security of that nation. The future of Afghanistan is an important national security issue for the United States. Discontent is being sown in Afghanistan by al-Qaida agents, and if order again breaks down in Afghanistan, we can bet that terrorists and extremists will try to take advantage of the situation. If Osama bin Laden is still alive, which recent reports seem to indicate, I am sure that he is looking forward to the failure of U.S. and allied efforts to bring security and stability to Afghanistan. If we are to head him off at the pass, the first thing we need to do is have a clear plan of action. While the President seems eager to use military force against Saddam Hussein, I urge him first to take care of the unfinished business in Afghanistan. The situation is crying for his attention. The Senate has passed a bill to authorize funds to address the problems in Afghanistan, but it is up to the President to show the leadership that is needed to prevent the situation in that country from further deterioration.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I will.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. I should think so. It would be my feeling, Mr. President, that we ought to look at the amendment on its face, on its merits, and vote for it. If I were disposed to vote against it--there are some who will--but those of us who are for it should not back away because of some scare tactic that is being used by the White House to try to get Members to vote against that amendment. Where is the House of Representatives supposed to be? They get paid the same salaries as we do. Their job is not finished. Our job is not finished. Why shouldn't they be here? Over the many years I have been in the Senate, 44 years now, time and time again I have seen the House pass a conference report or appropriations bill or something, and walk away and leave the Senate holding the bag. There is no reason why they should not have to come back, if we pass an amendment and it goes to conference. They should come back and finish their work. This is an important piece of work. They ought not go home on the pretext that, if this measure is passed by the Senate, they should not have a conference on it. Or the White House should not be spreading the scare stories. If the House wants to have a conference, that's fine. If the House doesn't want to have a conference and wants to accept the bill, it can, or it wants to accept the amendment, it can. Then that could go to the President for his veto, if he wishes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, last year when my beloved little dog Billy passed away, many people came to me to express their condolences. It was like losing one of the family. My wife and I have shed many tears over little Billy. There is never a day that I don't pass his little box of ashes that is sitting up in my bedroom, never a day that I don't touch that little box and think of little Billy. He has been with us 15 years. We have a new dog now, one which is a very sweet little female dog. She is a lap dog. She is a Shi Tzu, a dog that came out of Tibet. It was bred to be a lap dog in the palace, extremely friendly, knows no person is not a friend. She just smothers my wife's face with kisses-- and mine, too. So we love her. But I said to Erma the other night: Erma, if Billy could come back tomorrow, would he still be No. 1? And both she and I said yes; even though we love this little dog, the little dog we have now, the female--she is called Trouble; I think my wife saw me coming when she named the little dog Trouble. I said to Erma, if Billy came back tonight, would he still be No. 1, and she said yes. And we both agreed that Billy would still be No. 1. Last year, when our beloved dog Billy Byrd passed away, many people came to me to express their condolences. But one who really, really touched me was a big, hulking Navy combat veteran who came to my office and showed a personal compassion in that moment of sorrow. That person came to talk about the little dog that I had lost. He had read about the passing of our little dog Billy. He read the story in the newspaper, and he came to my office to express his sorrow. Who was he? That person was the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Robert Smith. He would make about two of me, Robert Byrd. Here he came to my office, took his own busy time to come to my office. This was back in April of this year. He came to my office, paid a special visit to my office to tell me how sorry he was to hear about my little dog Billy. So once again, as I have many times in my long years with which God has blessed me, I came to realize that the people with whom we work here in the Senate often have a personal side that we do not get to know or understand in our working relationships on the Senate floor. Our colleagues are usually much more complex than their public persona would lead one to believe and have facets to their characters that are not often seen in their daily official activities. But Senator Robert Smith's thoughtful expression of sympathy gave me a better understanding and appreciation for this man who for several years now has proudly represented his State in the Senate. He is on the Armed Services Committee with me. I have served on that committee now with him these many years. Senator Smith possesses an admirable quality of perseverance. As a young man, he had to work his way through college. Although he was the son of a naval aviator who was killed in combat during World War II, when Robert Smith was old enough, he enlisted in the Navy and he proudly served our country in combat in Vietnam. He is a person who had to run for Congress three times before being elected. As a Senator, his tenacious adherence to his independent ways eventually cost him his Senate seat. He has often been portrayed as a fierce conservative, but I came to perceive him as the ``citizen legislator'' that he promised to be when he was first elected to Congress in 1984. In his twelve years in the Senate, he has been a forceful advocate of the many and various causes in which he believes, and he has never been deterred by the labels others may place on those views. Bob Smith's politics is not easy to characterize, from his support for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget to helping to preserve and protect our environment, he has defied easy labels. Senator Smith has also been a strong advocate for modernizing his state's and the nation's infrastructure, and for that I sincerely applaud him. He has also tenaciously fought to gain a thorough accounting of American MIAs and POWs. I have probably opposed Senator Smith more than I have agreed with him, but I have consistently been impressed with his independence of spirit and thought, and his dedication to the causes in which he believes. I am confident that in his future efforts he will continue to demonstrate the steadfastness, courage, and integrity that he has exemplified during his twelve years in this chamber. I wish him well in his future endeavors. I hope he will, indeed, come back and visit those who are his colleagues of this date.

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

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, tomorrow morning the Senate will vote on the amendment introduced by Senator Daschle to the homeland security bill. This amendment will strike several provisions in the bill that were added by the other body in the dark of night without their ever having seen the light of day until after they were adopted. I have added my name as a cosponsor of the amendment because I was troubled by the substance of these last-minute provisions. I was pleased that Senator Daschle and Senator Lieberman were taking action to strike the new language from the bill. I support the amendment and I hope that other Senators will support it, as well. I have cosponsored the amendment because I believe the Senate has a duty to take the time to improve legislation when it needs improving, as it does, obviously. This bill certainly needs improving. I had hoped that more Senators would be able to offer their amendments to this bill. I have heard several of my colleagues expressing concerns about what is in the bill, as well as what is not in the bill. I have concerns of my own, many of which I have expressed in recent days. I also have amendments that could be offered to address these problems, just as other Senators have amendments that they had hoped to offer. But here we are, consuming all of our time under cloture in consideration of this single amendment. The Senators in the minority are keeping us from voting on the Daschle amendment until all 30 hours of debate have run. The Republican side of the aisle is doing this to prevent other amendments from being offered during this time. While the administration is pressing hard to avoid other amendments, the die was already cast for this bill when the Senate voted last Friday to invoke cloture. Caesar crossed the Rubicon on January 11, in the year 49 A.D., on the night of January 11. Whether he crossed the Rubicon before midnight or after midnight on that night, I don't recall; I am not sure I ever knew. It was on that night that he crossed the Rubicon. He paused thoughtfully and then he said: The die is cast. So be it. I voted against cloture last week on Friday because I believed that there were problems in this bill that should be thoroughly addressed in the Senate; that we needed more time to debate those problems and that we needed more time in which to offer amendments to the 484-page bill that had been dropped on our desks on the morning of last Wednesday. I tried to get some of our Democratic colleagues to vote against cloture on Friday, so that we would have a little more time in which we Senators and our staffs could study that hurriedly-put-together bill, hurriedly passed by the other body. I felt that we should not invoke cloture on last Friday, that we should take a few more days, study the bill, and try to amend it before cloture, as I knew, would finally be adopted. But my words were to little avail. There was at least one Senator who did vote against cloture at my importuning him to do so. And I deeply appreciated his willingness to listen and his willingness to vote against cloture. There were others who were not quite so willing. They listened patiently, but they went on their way and voted for cloture. Some of them thought that, inasmuch as we would then have 30 hours under cloture, we could offer our amendments. But I knew that the entire 30 hours could be spent on one amendment. I had never seen it done before, but it very well could be. I was aware of that. I didn't think it would be done, but we have seen it has been done by the Republican minority, which has said: This far; no farther. You have offered one amendment, that being the Daschle amendment on behalf of himself and Mr. Lieberman--you have offered that amendment, and the entire 30 hours will be spent on that amendment. You will not have any opportunity to offer any other amendment. I still believe that there are serious problems in the bill that go far beyond the provisions stricken by the Daschle amendment. That was not an all-encompassing amendment as far as I was concerned. It was an amendment in the right direction but, even with the adoption of the amendment, there is going to be a tremendous amount of power shifted to the President. He is going to have a full year in which to indicate to the rest of us what his plan is for reorganizing, and for organizing the new Department. He probably doesn't know at this moment what his plan will be. But he has a year, under this bill, to offer his plan. And it will, ipso facto, automatically go into effect at some point. Congress is out of the loop. Congress will not be asked to approve his plan. Congress will only be informed of his plan. That's it. We have no further say in the matter. So his plan, being a pig in a poke, a plan which we do not know now, that plan will at some point go into effect without any further vote on the part of Congress. Congress will not be asked to approve it. And this bill, which we will pass on tomorrow, will not give Congress the right to vote to approve that plan. Moreover, an amendment, if I had been able to offer it, to provide for congressional approval--that amendment would not have been germane under cloture. So we were headed off there. So we have helped to cut our own throats, to a degree, by having voted for cloture last Friday. I urged Senators last Friday, as I said before, not to vote for cloture last week, so we would have more time in which to read and study this bill that was dropped suddenly into our laps by the other body. I pleaded with this Senate not to shut off debate and limit amendments, and 28 other Senators voted with me not to do so. There were 29 Senators who voted against it and they were all Democrats. Mr. President, 29 Democrats voted against cloture last Friday. Only 17 Democrats voted for some cloture. There were other Democrats who were absent and not voting and their votes, of course--at least four of those Senators would have voted against cloture. That would have brought the vote up to 33 votes against cloture, well over half the Democratic caucus. So that if only six of the 17 Senators who did vote for cloture last Friday had not voted for cloture and voted against it, or had not voted for cloture, then there would have only been 59 votes for cloture, which would have meant that cloture would not have been invoked. Sixty-five votes in totality were for cloture. So all that was needed to defeat cloture was for six of those Senators who voted for cloture to vote against cloture. Many of my colleagues last week, as I pleaded with them to vote against cloture, reassured me that we would have the opportunity to offer amendments after cloture was invoked. But those Members should look carefully at where the Senate stands today, because there is an important lesson to be learned about the rules of the Senate and the effect of cloture on the ability of Senators to offer amendments. Not only have Senators been restricted to offering only those amendments that are ruled to be germane--and we know that under the cloture rule-- but Senators have been unable to offer any amendments at all, other than the amendment introduced by the majority leader. Not all Senators could foresee that would happen, but all Senators should have known that could happen under the rule. It did happen. So I hope the Senators who voted for cloture, some of them at least, will have some afterthoughts that will help in the future to remind them that we ought not be in such a great hurry to invoke cloture, especially on an extremely complicated bill which has been brought to our attention in its entirety just within the past few days beginning with last Wednesday. When I say to Senators that we should not shirk our responsibilities as legislators by invoking cloture, especially so quickly, so early on, I understand the kind of opportunities that are available under cloture, we will all understand this in the future. I understand that the rules of the Senate have been used fairly to prevent amendments from being offered to the homeland security legislation. When I hear the arguments that voting for the single amendment that has been offered will jeopardize passage of the bill, I understand that such arguments were made possible by the vote to invoke cloture. The Senate has painted itself, in a way, into a corner, by invoking cloture on the Thompson amendment. We have no one to blame but ourselves for allowing the administration and the other body to characterize this modest amendment as a threat to the passage of homeland security legislation. The administration wants to limit any amendments to one up-or-down vote so that the administration can argue that a vote for this amendment is a vote to ``kill'' the homeland security bill. There is simply no basis whatsoever in fact for the administration's attempts to politicize this vote by claiming that the vote on this amendment by Mr. Daschle and Mr. Lieberman will kill the bill. This legislation has been introduced for consideration by the Senate, and the extent of that consideration should not be confined to a few days of debate over whether simply to rubberstamp the legislation so it can be sent to the President for his signature. If the President wants to insist on getting this bill passed before Congress adjourns, he could persuade both Houses of Congress to pass bills and work out their differences in conference. Such a conference is one which may or may not take very long. As a matter of fact, the House could very well accept the amendment, if the amendment by Mr. Daschle and Mr. Lieberman should prevail--the House could very well accept that amendment, and the bill would go to the President. For now, I think the Senate should do its job. Senators need to look carefully at the bill, do what they can to make improvements before voting. And they only have this one chance--vote up or down on the Daschle amendment. That will help some but not enough. But that might allow some Senators in their own good consciences to vote for the bill. As far as I am concerned, it is not enough because there would still be a tremendous shift of power from the legislative branch to the President. And I don't feel like shifting that power to any President--not just this one, but in particular this administration with its way of wanting to do things in a secretive manner and wanting to run a government out of the White House, and not in the full light of day or under the full scrutiny of the press and the people. I intend to vote against this bill, and I know that a majority of Senators will likely vote for it. But whether Senators plan to vote for this bill or against it, we should all work to make sure that the Senate passes the best possible bill that it can under the circumstances. We ought to act responsibly in response to this eleventh-hour legislation that did not see the light of day until only a few days ago. We should not surrender our duties under the Constitution by allowing legislation to be dictated to this Senate in an atmosphere of political brinkmanship. Senator Daschle's amendment strikes a number of very troubling provisions that were added to this bill at the last minute in the hopes that the Senate would cave in to the administration's empty rhetoric. Senator Daschle and Senator Lieberman have called this bluff, and this amendment has cast a high-powered spotlight on language in this bill that cannot possibly withstand the light of day and the strict scrutiny of time. These shameful provisions could never survive public scrutiny, and now that they have been brought into focus, the Senate must ensure that they do not survive our consideration. So let us see on tomorrow whether or not the Senate has the will and the courage to take a strong stand against this power grab. That stand can be taken by voting for the Daschle-Lieberman amendment. This amendment strikes several provisions in this bill that do not deserve to be enacted into law. The first of these provisions in one that I have previously addressed, relating to unnecessary and dangerous exemptions from the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The language in this bill would give new blanket authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to exempt advisory committees from existing public disclosure and conflict-of-interest rules. These rules already allow exemptions for sensitive information relating to national security. This bill would allow the Secretary to cloak committee activities behind a veil of secrecy, regardless of whether those activities actually involve issues of national security. I believe that too much secrecy in government is dangerous to our civil liberties, and we should not authorize such broad exemptions without compelling evidence of the need for unchecked blanket authority. The President of the United States already has that authority on a case-by-case basis. But now we are going to extend it to the Secretary of the new Department, and of course he can exercise blanket authority if he so wishes. If we are to preserve our liberty and the integrity of our constitutional system, executive decision making must be subject to scrutiny and oversight by the Congress, the media, and the public. I support striking this language from the bill, and I thank Senators Daschle and Lieberman for bringing it to the attention of the Senate. The Daschle amendment also strikes several provisions in this bill that protect corporate campaign contributors from lawsuits. The first of these provisions would prohibit lawsuits against companies that manufacture vaccines by people who have been harmed by those vaccines, including children suffering from autism as a result of preservatives used in childhood vaccines. Another of these liability provisions would enact sweeping tort reform for products that are designated as anti-terrorism technologies. These provisions would protect companies that manufacture everything from gas masks to computer software when their products fail, even when the companies know that their products will not work. The final liability provision would give immunity to companies responsible for providing security screening in airports. The Senate rejected similar language last year during its consideration of the airline ``bailout'' bill, yet now we are being asked to approve it because it has been inserted into politically popular legislation. The attempt to slip this provision past the Senate is another example of the haste with which this bill has been drafted and considered by this Congress. Issues like these liability provisions should be carefully scrutinized before they become law, not just rubber-stamped by impatient lawmakers looking to put issues behind them and go home. Another provision that has already been considered by this Senate relates to doing business with companies that have moved their headquarters out of the United States to avoid paying U.S. taxes. In its consideration of the Lieberman substitute to the homeland security bill, the Senate adopted an amendment offered by the late Senator Wellstone that prohibited the Secretary of Homeland Security from contracting with such companies, unless he needed to do so for national security reasons. The Thompson substitute guts the Wellstone amendment by allowing the Secretary expanded powers to waive this prohibition to prevent the loss of jobs or to save money for the government. The Senate should reject this attempt to undermine the will of the Senate by restoring the language of Senator Wellstone's amendment to the homeland security bill. The Thompson substitute also tries to slip in language to delay the implementation of new airport security regulations. The Senate enacted procedures in last year's airline security bill for the Transportation Security Agency to issue regulations for improving security in our Nation's airports. The new language in the Thompson substitute would modify these procedures by requiring the Transportation Security Oversight Board to ratify any regulations before they become effective. I see no good reason for this modification, If there is one, the Senate should take the time to debate it rather than hastily approving it as part of this massive legislation. The final provision that will be stricken by the Daschle-Lieberman- Byrd amendment is the language directing that a new homeland security research center be created at Texas A&M University. I don't think the amendment specifically says that, but its provisions are such that that particular university would be most favored and targeted for location of such a center. The amendment removes items from the list of highly specific criteria which all but guaranteed that Texas A&M would be the only university which would qualify for the new research center. Mr. President, striking these provisions from the Thompson amendment is a good start. I believe that the Senate should go further in fulfilling its constitutional duty to improve this legislation before passing this bill. I believe there are many other provisions of this bill which should be stricken and begun anew next year. In fact, I think we would all be more secure if we put off the whole bill and started over next year. For example, there is a provision that the President may submit his recommendations to Congress and the only thing that Congress can do is just at that point agree to his recommendations. The Congress has no opportunity to approve or not approve of those recommendations as far as this bill is concerned. We might expect a great deal of chaos as these 28 agencies are moved into the Department. This will take place within the next year. The President has not yet submitted his plan for having the agencies moved into the new Department, but his plan will be submitted at some point and, ipso facto, will go into effect. Under an amendment which I had offered earlier to the homeland security measure--that being at that time, I believe, the Lieberman bill that came out of the committee of which he is chairman--I had offered an amendment to provide for an orderly phase-in of agencies into the new Department over a period of a year. Under my amendment, the recommendations of the administration would have gone to the Lieberman committee and to its counterpart in the House of Representatives. And those two committees would have had an opportunity, then, to hold hearings and, under expedited procedures, could have brought out bills, reported bills, to implement the phasing in of agencies into the new Department, with there being three phases, of 120 days each, which would have created an orderly process whereby these various agencies would have been phased into the new Department. Also, the Congress would have been kept in the loop in each case, with the Lieberman committee and its counterpart in the House being able to hold hearings, call witnesses, vote out bills by expedited procedures. Those bills would come to the Senate. They could be called up in the Senate under expedited procedures so that there would be no filibuster, and those bills would be amended, passed on; and in this way the creation of the new Department, with the orderly phasing in of the agencies, would occur over the same period of time--1 year--as is the case with the current bill. As it is, when we pass this bill in the Senate, we are out of the loop; we have automatically put ourselves, the Congress, to the sidelines. And the President then can do as he wishes. He can submit his plan, and that plan would automatically go into effect. Congress will be on the sideline. We will have said: Here it is, Mr. President. It's all yours. We have no more say in it. It's yours. Just be kind enough to let us know what your plans are. That's all we ask. Let us know what your plans are. But under my amendment, those recommendations would have come to the Congress. Congress would have kept itself in the loop. It would have been able to maintain oversight. And with each phase, each of the three phases, as it passed from the first, to the second, to the third, Congress would have benefited by its experience under the first, and then under the second, and there would have been an orderly phase-in, and with Congress, as I say, retaining its place in the loop. But that amendment was opposed even by Mr. Lieberman and, I believe, the majority leader. The majority leader I think voted against it. It was his right to do so. But Mr. Lieberman, the author of the bill which had been reported out by his committee, voted against the amendment. So I thought it would have been an improvement to the bill and certainly would not have been in derogation of the committee in its work. But that amendment was rejected. And there you are. I tried. I failed to bring about that improvement. So that is another improvement that I think ought to still have been put into the bill that is before us. So I have seen the handwriting on the wall. I know this bill will probably pass the Senate. Having said that, I believe that the amendment by Mr. Daschle and Mr. Lieberman is important because it does make some needed improvements to the bill. The Senate has a duty to approve at least these minimal proposals, if I may say that about them--they are important improvements--before handing over this broad grant of power to the executive branch. I urge Senators to vote for the Daschle-Lieberman amendment on tomorrow morning. Mr. President, I yield the floor. procurement policy

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I yield whatever time he may wish to consume to the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, with my retaining the floor.

Mr. BYRD. The distinguished Senator from Vermont is welcome, and I congratulate him.

Mr. BYRD. And will be for the next 30.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I see two of my distinguished colleagues on the floor of the Senate who want to speak. At this moment, I am in no great hurry to get away. I am happy to accommodate both of them. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to either Senator Specter or Senator Frist--Senator Frist first. How much time would the Senator like?

Mr. BYRD. For not to exceed 25 minutes--15 and 10--and that I then regain my right to the floor, even though I may walk away from the floor in the meantime.

Mr. BYRD. I am not going to detain the Senator. My colleague here wishes to get the floor, and I am not going to detain him, but I still have to say that I am surprised at some of the things we do here. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota is one of the brightest Senators I have ever seen over my good many years in this institution. But let's take the war, the resolution on a war with Iraq. I took the position that if we are, indeed--I was against that resolution, but I said, if, indeed, we are going to shift this kind of power to the President, a power to declare war, then shouldn't we put a sunset provision in, shouldn't we stop that, at least give him 2 years, and then say that we have to take another look at that? Was the Senator surprised, as I was, to see this very body--and even more surprisingly to see our own party--oppose that provision, a sunset provision, when the Constitution says Congress shall have the power to declare war, and we were shifting that power to the Chief Executive to determine how and when our military forces would be used, for how long and where? And he has that power in perpetuity. The next President after him will have that same power. I was surprised. I am surprised to see where this Senate, which has been the great protector of the American people and the constitutional system for over 200 years, is going of late. I have been very bitterly disappointed in this Senate, of which I am a part, to see where it is going. It seems to have lost its nerve, lost its way, lost its vision, lost its understanding of its role under the Constitution. Well, I thank the Senator and yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator says he is confident that the Congress will do no such thing? I say most respectfully to the Senator, I would not count on what the next Congress might do. I am very much afraid of what the next Congress might do in many areas. Doesn't the Senator share that feeling?

Mr. BYRD. I say, Congress normally would not do that. But I am not too sure what the next Congress might do.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Now, Mr. President, the point I am trying to make here is--and I wanted it in the Record, and I wanted Senators to be aware of what they did when they voted to invoke cloture on last Friday. The distinguished occupant of the chair did not vote to invoke cloture, nor did this Senator, who now is speaking. There were 29 Democrats who voted against cloture last Friday. There were 17 Democrats who voted for cloture last Friday. As I note--and this may have been a cursory examination I have made--but I have noted, in a cursory examination, I believe two Republicans who were absent would have voted with me against cloture and I believe four Democrats who were absent would have voted with me against cloture. In any event, had 6 of the 17 Democrats who voted for cloture voted against cloture last Friday, we would not be under cloture at this point because the number of Senators voting for cloture on last Friday would have been only 59 and the number, therefore, would have fallen 1 vote short of cloture. Now, I tried to get my fellow Democrats to vote against cloture because I felt that we ought to have more time to discuss this homeland security bill, which had been dropped on our desks virtually out of the shades of the early morning as they were lifting and the golden fingers of dawn were streaking across the land. I tried to get several Senators to vote against cloture, my plea being: ``Don't vote for cloture today. Give us a little more time. If we don't vote for cloture today, it will be voted next week ``--meaning this week, which we have now started. ``Don't vote for cloture today.'' One or two Senators listened to my importunings and voted against cloture. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 3 minutes.