Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Tremendous.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his contribution today, and for his references to the ancient Roman, Gaius Petronius Arbiter, whom the Senator from Maryland more than once has quoted on this floor. I thank the Senator for his defense of the patriotic Federal employees who work day and night to protect us. Mr. President, we will not have one whit more protection with the passage of this 484 pages, not one whit protection more than we have now. The same people who will protect us at the borders, at the ports, at the airports and throughout the land at the ports of entry, the same people who will protect us then are out there now. They are there day and night protecting us. So I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland. Mr. President, continuing my statement, and I will not be overly long, probably the most egregious provision inserted is a White House- backed provision designed to head off dozens of potential lawsuits against Eli Lilly and Company and other pharmaceutical giants that are being sued by parents who have linked their children's autism to those companies' childhood vaccines. The language would keep the lawsuits out of State courts, ruling out huge judgments and lengthy litigation and, instead, channel complaints to a Federal program set up to provide liability protection for vaccine manufacturers. The program, funded through a surcharge on vaccines, compensates persons injured by such vaccines to a maximum of $250,000. A number of Senators, including the very distinguished Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, strongly criticized these provisions yesterday. And yet at the same time, some Senators who have made these statements--not the Senator whose name I have expressed just now--but some Senators at the same time have pledged to vote in favor of this bill, regardless of whether these provisions are included or removed. How about that. We are acting as though this is a conference report that cannot be amended, as though its passage is a fait accompli. We still have the opportunity to amend this bill, except for the fact that our Republican friends on the other side of the aisle have said: This far and no further. We have got an amendment pending in the tree and that is all you will get. You will get a vote on that amendment--up or down on or in relation to it, I suppose, at the end of the 30 hours-- but no more amendments. That is it. That is the only amendment. Well, we will see about that. We still have the opportunity to amend the bill, at least the basic bill, H.R. 5005, even postcloture. So this amendment introduced by Senator Daschle will strike language in this bill which the Senate has not previously considered, the language that would allow the Homeland Security Secretary to establish advisory committees within the Homeland Security Department and to exempt these committees from the Federal Advisory Committee Act. When I saw that in the amendment that the leader was introducing on behalf of Mr. Lieberman--I saw that in the amendment, and I immediately wanted my name attached because I have been complaining, I have been criticizing that, complaining about that language in the bill. This statute which has been on the books, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which has been on the books for 30 years, ensures that the ad hoc committees used to craft policy in the executive branch provide objective advice that is accessible to the public. These public disclosure rules allow Congress and the media and groups outside of Government to know how the executive branch is making important policy decisions. Section 871 of this new substitute we have just been given, less than 60 hours ago, provides the Secretary of Homeland Security blanket authority to exempt all advisory committees in the Department from existing public disclosure rules. This provision was not included in Senator Lieberman's substitute, but it has been slipped into this new bill, which was made available to us, as I say, less than 60 hours ago, with the hope that Senators will not have enough time to scrutinize this dramatic change to existing statute. Many of the advisory committees in this new Homeland Security Department will be dealing with issues of national security that should not be subjected to public disclosure rules. But the Federal Advisory Committee Act already allows the President to exempt these public disclosure rules for advisory committee for national security reasons. This is authority that the President has used for 30 years, and authority he will be able to use for advisory committees in the Homeland Security Department. But instead of relying on the President's current authority to exempt committees on a case-by-case basis, the new language in this bill allows the Secretary to exempt ANY advisory committee from public disclosure rules, regardless of whether national security is pertinent or not. This new blanket authority is not necessary. As a matter of fact, we ought not have it. It shouldn't be that way because it interferes with the people's right to know, and it is a danger to our liberty. It is a danger to our constitutional system. The provisions in this bill allow the Secretary to use ad hoc advisory committees to craft policy in secret, without making specific findings that such secrecy is necessary in any particular instance. The press, I hope, will read this bill and understand this bill. I hope the press is fully aware of how this presents a danger and a threat to the media's efforts to probe, to ask questions, and to scrutinize and to protect the public's right to know. This unnecessary new blanket authority will give the President carte blanche to respond and expand the culture of secrecy that now permeates this White House--this administration. Let me say that again. This unnecessary new blanket authority can be used to give the President carte blanche to expand the culture of secrecy that now permeates this White House--this administration. The public disclosure exemptions in this bill are a license for abuse. They are a danger. They are un-American. They should not become law. I hope that Senators, before they cast their vote on the passage of this bill, will think about this. I hope they will be prepared to answer the public--their constituents--in the next election, whatever election down the road awaits them. I hope they will be prepared. There are going to be stories in the press as time goes on, I would wager, about this particular authority that the Senate will extend with passage of this bill to this administration and to this new Department--to the Secretary of this new Department. We see on the front page of the Washington Times today--I have already mentioned the Wall Street Journal, and I mentioned the Washington Post. Now I call attention to the front page of the Washington Times this morning. There is a headline which reads ``Homeland Bill a Supersnoop's Dream.'' There are many dreams to which we can allude--Jacob's dream--the dreams. ``Homeland Bill a Supersnoop's Dream.'' In yesterday's New York Times, William Safire warned that if this homeland security legislation is passed as it is currently written, the Federal Government may be planning to use its new intelligence authority to compile computerized dossiers on every American citizen, including ``every piece of information that government has about you . . . '' --every piece of information that the Government has about you, each of you, about you, about you, about you-- . . . including ``every piece of information that government has about you--passport applications, driver's license, bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the FBI, your lifetime paper trail . . . '' That is a long trail. . . . ''your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance.'' No one knows about those hidden cameras and where they are. They may be looking at you. Who knows. They may be in your office looking at you. Do we need to add to all of this by providing even more authority for the Federal Government to hide decisions behind locked doors--decisions which affect the safety of every man, woman, and child in this Nation? Exampting these committees from the Federal Advisory Committee Act also removes requirements that the advice of these committees be objective and that the membership of the committees represent balanced viewpoints on the issues. With this new authority, the Secretary will not have to make any effort whatsoever to ensure the integrity and objectivity of these committees. The language in this bill--here it is--484 pages. It wasn't around a week ago today. Nobody saw one page a week ago today. This bill didn't exist a week ago today. The language in this bill even exempts individual members of advisory committees from financial conflict-of-interest rules. We should not allow our homeland security policies to be crafted by corporate advisors with a financial interest in those policies. This bill should not become a vehicle for lining the pockets of corporate fat cats. Section 232 of the new bill also exempts advisory committees within the Office of Science and Technology in the Justice Department. This means that this new office, which will serve as the focal point for developing law enforcement technology, may rely on advisory committees whose members have a personal stake in the policy recommendations adopted by the committees. I am worried that exempting this new Science and Technology Office will allow the administration to provide special treatment for corporate campaign contributions who are pushing new anti-terrorism technologies. It worries me that issues as important as homeland security and the safety of the American people may be decided in secret by ad hoc committees that are exempt from traditional good government laws. Under this language, the Secretary will be able to exempt not only new advisory committees, but also existing committees that are transferred into the Department along with these 28 agencies and offices. This amendment, which I have cosponsored, will strike this exemption authority from the bill. This dangerous new authority should not be slipped under the cover of darkness, as it were, into legislation that Senators have had little time to study or amend. If the Secretary of the new Department of Homeland Security needs this blanket authority, let him come to Congress and make his case. Congress must not hand over blanket authority to this administration which would allow it to cloak decisions in secrecy. Now, Senators, this is what we are about to vote on, this bill. Now, if the amendment fails, Senators should not then go ahead and vote for this bill. If this amendment to strike these provisions fails to be adopted, Senators have no right then to go home and say: Well, I voted for the amendment. I was for that, but it failed and I, therefore, went ahead and voted for this bill. What a crappy bill. Don't hide behind your vote when you vote on this amendment or you vote in relation to it or whatever the vote is when it comes. Don't hide behind that. If that amendment fails, don't hide behind that and say: Well, I voted for the amendment, and so I tried to get it in there, but the Senate voted it down, so I went ahead and voted for the bill. Shame on you. And your constituents should say so: Shame on you. Now, you say you voted for the amendment, and that the Senate didn't adopt it. Your convictions were not very strong, so you went ahead and voted for the bill, then, after that amendment failed. Shame on you. Mr. President, I don't know of any measure that has ever come before the Senate in connection with which I have spoken more passionately, with greater conviction, than I have in regard to this bill. I have no special ax to grind. No, I have no special ax to grind. I am on nobody's payroll except the people's. I am concerned about this. I am more concerned about this bill than I believe any bill I have ever voted on or will ever have voted on. And I have cast more votes than any Senator in the history of this Republic. I have no special ax to grind. You say: Well, he's 85. He won't be running again. Don't bet on it. Don't bet on it. That is a matter for the Good Lord to determine and the people of the State of West Virginia. So don't count me out. There are those who may say: Don't count me in. I believe there is a song to that effect: ``Don't Count Me In.'' But don't count me out. That is my belief. This dramatic reduction of transparency should not be clandestinely slipped into this eleventh-hour legislation, and the Senate should not allow such a dangerous provision to be rushed through this Chamber during the final minutes of this Congress. So shame on you if you vote for this amendment, and then, if it fails, you turn around and vote for this 484-page bill. Don't use that as an excuse when you go back to your constituents. Every Senator has the right to do what he thinks best, but, believe you me, your constituents, if you vote for this bill--if that amendment fails, and you still vote for this bill, I hope you won't try to hide behind your vote for the amendment that is before the Senate: Oh, I voted for that amendment, but the Senate rejected it, so I then felt that I had done my best, and I went ahead and voted for the bill. Shame on you. This administration has worked hard to keep the Congress out of the loop. The President has sought to isolate himself from the American public and their Representatives in Congress. He has asked for the Congress to provide him with broad statutory powers to further block congressional involvement. That is what this bill will do. Pass this bill, and you will say to the President: Well, I don't know what your plan is--you have not told us what your plan is--but we have approved it. Here it is. Here is the bill. So you have the next 12 months in which to determine your plan, and all you need to do--we hope you will tell us about it. The language here provides for the President ``informing'' the Congress about the plan. Well, in some cases, Senators have supported the President on these issues, either to show unity with the leader of their party or because they fear political attacks if they do not. Less and less, it seems to me, do we think about these grants of power that will affect the constitutional checks and balances and separation of powers that protect the constitutional freedoms of our country. I must say this, that the shelf life of appreciation one might expect from this administration, in having supported it--those of us, may I say, on this side of the aisle, in particular--the shelf life of appreciation from this administration for your efforts to curry favor with the administration, if that is what it is, is very short indeed. We saw that in the case of the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Cleland. We saw that in the case of the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mrs. Carnahan. We have seen it in the cases of other Senators who supported the administration. They did what they thought was right. But in any event, their votes were in support of the administration on various issues--the tax cut, the Iraq war resolution, whatever it might have been--and yet, the President, himself, went into those very States and campaigned against those Senators. So this administration's thanks don't go very far, may I say to Senators. So the best thing to do, as always, is to do your best, vote your convictions, and stand by your people who send you here, and stand by the Constitution. Henry Clay, as a Senator from Kentucky in 1833, in building the case for the censure of President Andrew Jackson, asked the Senate: How often have we, Senators, felt that the check of the Senate, instead of being, as the Constitution intended, a salutary control, was an idle ceremony . . . We have established a system, in which power has been most carefully separated and distributed between three separate and independent departments. We have been told a thousand times, and all experience assures us, that such a division is indispensable to the existence and preservation of freedom. . . . This is Henry Clay talking: The president, it is true, presides over the whole . . . but has he power to come into Congress, and to say such laws only shall pass . . . to arrest their lawful progress, because they have dared to act contrary to his pleasure? No, sir; no, sir. Well, Henry Clay was an opponent of the Presidential veto. He thought that was a despicable thing, the President's veto. So he spoke, as I have just read. He spoke of the President and he said: It is true, he presides over the whole: . . . but has he power to come into Congress, and to say such laws only shall pass . . . to arrest their lawful progress, because they have dared to act contrary to his pleasure? No, sir; no, sir. The Senate must not blindly follow in the name of party unity. I don't blindly follow in the name of the Democratic Party unity. I don't do that. I won't do that. That will not be my guiding star. In storm or in tempest or in fair weather, that will not be my guiding star. The Senate must not blindly follow, in the name of party unity or under the yoke of political pressure, a shortsighted path that ultimately undermines our sworn duty to support and defend the Constitution. I will vote against this homeland security bill because even the amendment that is before the Senate is not enough. I have some amendments that I would like to offer. If this amendment fails, I would like to offer my amendments. It is very questionable as to whether I will get to do that, very questionable as to whether or not those amendments will pass the Senate. I doubt that they will. So I intend to vote against this homeland security bill. I will raise my voice as long as I have a voice, and I will raise my hand as long as I can raise that hand to attempt to derail this blatant power grab and giveaway of the people's liberties. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Chair will bear with me momentarily. Mr. President, over recent weeks as the President crisscrossed the Nation on campaign stops--campaign stop after campaign stop--he used a number of gimmicks, including this legislation, to rally support for his chosen candidates. He painted this bill as a panacea for the terrorist threats that plague us and challenged this Congress to pass this bill quickly. On each occasion, as I followed the newspaper accounts of the President's stops during the campaign, the President left the impression among the public that this bill is urgently needed, and that it will make life safer for American families. But there was much he didn't say. Here is what the people can expect after the Congress approves this legislation to transfer 28 agencies and offices to a new Homeland Security Department. Next February, the President will submit a plan--his plan--to the Congress about how he intends to transfer 28 agencies and offices into a massive new Department over the period of just 12 months. We don't know what is in the President's plan today, and we will not know what is in the President's plan when and if Congress passes this bill and it goes to the Chief Executive for his signature. We will not know what is in the President's plan. After we have passed this bill and it becomes law, the President will then inform the Congress about how he intends to reorganize, consolidate, and streamline these 28 agencies as they are moved into the new Department. He will not seek approval of the Congress--the elected representatives of the people. He will not seek our approval. He will not need to because--according to the provisions of this bill on which we are being hurried and stampeded to act, according to the provisions of this bill--he will simply drop the plan in the laps of the committees so they can be informed about what he intends to do. He will not be asking for their approval. We will have already given our approval when we pass this bill. I hope Senators understand that. When we pass this bill, we, the Congress, are out of it. The President will in due time submit his plan. In due time he will inform the Congress as to what he intends to do. He won't have to ask us if we approve of what he is going to do. We will have already said to him: Here it is. You submit your plan. According to the provisions of this bill, your plan will go into effect in due time. And we will not have any more to say about it. He will simply drop the plan. It will not fall like manna from heaven, because it won't come from heaven. This is what we are authorizing the President to do when we adopt this bill that is before the Senate. Here it is. Those who are watching this floor through the electronic lenses before us, here is the bill. It is made up of 484 pages. These pages are not like reading ``Robinson Crusoe'' or Milton's ``Paradise Lost.'' They are very difficult pages to understand. On only a single page there may be many references to various and sundry laws that are already on the statute books, so that in order to understand what may be on a single page, we have to go back, look at the references, and go back to those statutes that have been on the books--some of them--for many years or decades. We have to go back and see what those laws contain before we understand what is on a single written page. It is not like reading a novel. In some senses, it is made to sound like a fairy tale. But it is indeed not a fairy tale. This is a bill that affects you--a bill that affects those two members of the staff back here who are talking. This is a bill that affects you. This is a bill that will affect you, each of you--you, you, you, you, each Senator. Each of those persons out there who are watching this debate--it is really not a debate. There is only one Senator talking here and one Senator listening and one Senator in the chair. So there are not too many Senators here. Hopefully, they are watching from their offices, as we all do. This is the bill. Let me say it again: 484 pages of complicated material. How long have we had it? A little over 48 hours. It came to us early in the morning on the day before yesterday. Today is Friday--early in the morning of Wednesday. There it is. There is the whole thing--the whole thing. I don't know what is in it. I know about some of the things that are in it. But no Senator in here knows everything that is in this bill. I daresay that. I would be happy for any Senator to stand on his feet and challenge me on that and say: Hold up here a minute; I know everything that is in it. We are authorizing the President to submit this plan. He can do it without our subsequent approval. This legislation authorizes the President to reorganize, consolidate, or streamline these 28 agencies and offices any way he chooses--any way he, that one man, the President of the United States--as these various agencies are moved into the new Department. All this legislation asks of the President of the United States is that he let us know what he has decided. That is not asking a lot from the Chief Executive of this country. That is all he needs to be concerned about. All he needs to be concerned about is to explain what he plans to do. Too late. I am sorry to say to any of you Senators that you can't do anything about this. You have already given him the approval. When you vote aye on this 484-page bill, you will have given the President the approval that he needs. You can be sorry for what you have done. You can crab about it and be cranky and wish you had not done it. But it is too late now. You remember that old song: ``It is too late now.'' Well, it will be too late for any of us--too late. We can weep and gnash our teeth--if we have any teeth left. And I happen to have my full set after 85 years. I have a full--I can't say quite a full set. But I have lost about I think four teeth in my lifetime of 85 years. These are real teeth. I can't take them out at night and scrub them, wash them, and put them in a big glass of water. I can't do that. They are real. They are real teeth. And they can bite, thank God. We didn't have all of this fancy medicine and all of these fancy health programs that the young people and children have today, with which mothers and fathers are blessed. We didn't have anything like that in those days. So all I have is what the good Lord gave me through my mother's and father's genes. Well, that is all I have. So here we are. I can gnash my teeth. They are real teeth. I can gnash those teeth. I seldom show them around here, but they are there. I can gnash my teeth, and complain all I want, and say I wish I had known--I wish I had known. Well, it is too late now. That will be the way it is. He can move these agencies any way he chooses. All this legislation asks the President to do is: You please just tell us what your plan is. Will you do that? Please, just tell us what your plan is. There are 1.8 million people in West Virginia whom I represent, and who are represented by my colleague, Senator Rockefeller. My people, my 1.8 million, would love to know what those plans are. But bless his name, the President does not have to tell us today. And we don't ask him. But we will get on our knees and fold our hands and say: Mr. President, will you just please tell us, when you are ready, what you plan to do? You can do it now. Here is the bill. We are passing it today, but just please tell us what you are going to do. All this legislation asks is that the President let us know what he-- he, the President of the United States. He will be with us 2 more years, maybe 6. Who knows. But anyhow, this man down here in the White House, one man out of 280 million, he will tell us what he plans to do. A few months after we receive the President's proposal--after he is so generous to come up here and tell us what he plans to do--a few months after we receive his proposal, we will begin reading articles in newspapers and magazines. I am going to come back to the floor--the Lord willing, if He lets me live--I am going to come back on the floor and remind my colleagues; I am going to remind all these staff people around here: This is what I told you. I told you. After we start reading all these articles in newspapers and magazines about special advisory committees--this is exactly what that Senator who is sitting in the Chair right now, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, talked about this morning. He told us about it. He told us about these special advisory committees. And they will have been established, by the new Homeland Security Secretary, to make recommendations about certain homeland security-related issues. Now, look at that. I hope Senators will go back and read today's Record or that of the first of the week about what Senator Corzine had to say about this, yes, about certain homeland security-related issues. Possibly, we will hear about an advisory committee being established--maybe we will see it in the Federal Registry, that an advisory committee has been established--to make recommendations about how the new Directorate of Information Analysis can look at our e-mail accounts. This will not be a laughing matter. I will tell you, this will not be a laughing matter. Now, let me say that again. Possibly, we will hear about an advisory committee that has been established to make recommendations about how the new Directorate of Information Analysis can look at our e-mail accounts, can look at our banking transactions, can look at our telephone conversations, or can even look at our credit card transactions. I don't have any credit cards. Let them look at mine. They can't look at my credit card transactions. I grew up the old-fashioned way. I pay for it as I get it. No credit card for Robert C. Byrd, or the Mrs. But to those who have credit cards, he can look at your credit card transactions to trace everything you purchase from butter to bullets. Welcome, Big Brother. How do you like that? The American people will want to know, and will deserve to know, what recommendations are being made to the Homeland Security Secretary. The press will try to provide the public with answers. But under this bill, you can be sure that the press will not be allowed to access the minutes of those committee meetings. That is what we are making possible by the passage of this legislation. We are making it possible for the American public not to know what these special committees are considering. And the public will not be able to find out because this bill--this bill--here it is; 484 pages, new, never been in a committee, never seen the light of day in a committee meeting. There is no analysis of this bill that I know of from any departments here. There have been no witnesses appearing before Senate committees supporting this bill. Nobody had any committee markup that I know about. This bill just suddenly emerged out of the darkness on the morning of Wednesday, the evening of Tuesday night. There it was. But that bill--that bill--will allow the new Secretary to exempt such advisory committees from the public disclosure laws that are on the books now that enable the press--the fourth estate--and the American public to find out what these advisory committees are doing. This bill will allow the Secretary to drop a veil, to bring the curtain of secrecy down, to drop a veil of secrecy over these advisory committees and hide their work from the press--from the all-seeing eyes of the press--and from the public. Do you want to vote for that? Is that what you Senators want to vote for? Is that what your constituents want you to vote for, Senators? I hope, if you are not hearing me now, that your staffs are listening. I hope, if you don't hear me, that somebody will show it to you in the Record on Monday morning what Senator Corzine, the distinguished able Senator from New Jersey, who presides over this Senate at this moment, I hope they will read what he said and what I am saying here about these advisory committees and about what we are about to let happen. And here is the bill that will allow it to happen. I hope you Senators who vote on this matter--probably one day next week--will have to answer to your constituents for that. I have been in this Congress 50 years, and I have cast many votes. I have cast more votes, than any Senator who ever lived, in the Senate of this Republic. And I just have to say, I have cast some votes that were critical votes, but I think that what we are doing in this bill, more than anything else I have voted on in my 50 years in Congress, is shifting power to an administration, shifting power to a President. I would say this: God, so help me--and God could drop me in my tracks right here in this moment if I were not saying what I believe--I would say the same thing about this bill if it were a Democratic President in the White House. I have no ax to grind. I am not on the payroll of any pharmaceutical company or any other company in this country. I am on the people's payroll right here in this Senate. That is it. So I have no ax to grind. I am just saying that if it were a Democratic President in the White House, I would be standing here today saying the very same thing. It isn't because the current President of the United States is a Republican. That is not it. But there is something about this Republican administration that is far different from what I have seen in former Republican administrations. And I served under Republican administrations, beginning with the Eisenhower administration. This is a different kind of administration. This is a bill that I will vote against regardless of who might be in the office of the President. This bill will allow the Secretary to drop a veil of secrecy over these advisory committees and hide their works from the press and the public. So what we are doing when we vote next week on this bill, if we vote next week, what we are doing is putting our hands over our eyes, and we are saying the public has no right to know. We are taking away the public's right to know. That is what we are about to do to you out there in the land, across the land, across the plateaus, the Plains, the mountains, the valleys. That is what we are saying to you. You may not catch us at it, but that is what we are doing to you. That is exactly what we are doing to your right to know. Later in the year, the people may begin to read in the newspapers about start-up problems in this vast new Department. The papers will possibly report about a failure by the new Immigration Service to deny entry to a known terrorist because the relevant immigration officials were too preoccupied with moving their offices, reconnecting their computers, reinstalling their phones, or even changing the heading on their stationery to handle their primary responsibility; namely, protecting our borders. This would bring about a clamoring of public disgust as agency officials are found to be too busy organizing their offices to properly handle their duties. Editorials will appear around the country remarking about the failures of the new Department, and the public very well may have reason to lose trust in that Department. These kinds of high-profile debacles could carry over to the Transportation Security Administration, the Customs Service, FEMA, the Coast Guard, or any of the 28 agencies and offices and 170,000 employees being transferred to the new Department. Senators may well read a few months from now about Federal workforces in their home States and the jobs of Federal employees being privatized under the labor rules included in this bill. Don't say that you were not warned, I say to my colleagues. Don't say that you were not warned. The Washington Post reported today that the administration plans to open as many as 850,000 Federal jobs to private contractors. Have you read it? If you haven't, go to today's Washington Post. Look for that story. It is there. Read it with your own eyes, and you will believe it. What a nice plum that is for the big business friends of the administration. How about that? What a shortsighted, ill-conceived political gimmick it is. What a hoax it is to play on the taxpayers. Privatization has nothing whatsoever to do with improving security. Look at the private security firms that were in charge at some of our Nation's largest airports on September 11. Remember reading about these in the newspaper? Go back and look at some of those old newspapers. Is more of that what this administration really wants? I ask, is more of that what this administration really wants? The Wall Street Journal editorialized today about the fallacy of pushing this bill through at such a late date. Now, imagine that. The Wall Street Journal. Hear me now. Paul Revere awakened Concord. I would like to be able to awaken this Senate and the other body. Do you suppose I could do that? Paul Revere did that. He was able to awaken Concord. Get out of your beds; the redcoats are coming. Let me say that again. The Wall Street Journal editorialized today about the fallacy of pushing this bill through at such a late date. How many of our Senators today voted for cloture? If Senators had read the Wall Street Journal, the editorial today about the fallacy of pushing this bill through at such a late date, would the Senators who voted yes--and I implored and I importuned and I urged, which I seldom do, I urged Senators right there in front of that desk, that table in the well of the Senate. There were several Senators I urged: Please don't vote for cloture today. You can vote for it next week perhaps, but don't vote today. Let's take a little more time and study this bill. The answer I got: Well, you have the weekend. You have 30 hours. You have 30 hours; isn't that enough? Do we have? No. We have already been told by the minority: You won't be able to offer any more amendments. The only amendment that is going to be offered is the amendment that has been offered by the majority leader, Mr. Daschle, that amendment on behalf of Senator Lieberman, and I added my name to it afterwards, when I saw what was going on. So there it is, the Daschle-Lieberman-Byrd amendment. But we are told by the current minority--soon to be the majority-- that you can't offer any more amendments. That is the only amendment we are going to let you offer. So how about that cloture now? I was told by some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle: Well, you have the whole weekend. You can study. Who saw this thing coming? Who saw the situation coming in which we would offer one amendment and we are told by our Republican friends, that is it, no more; that is the only amendment that will be offered? So what about it now, my colleagues who reminded me that we have this weekend? Even under cloture, we have this weekend. I said to one of the Senators who said that to me: I wasn't born yesterday. I am not a new kid on the street here. I have been in this Congress 50 years. I know a little something. I have learned a little something about the rules of the Senate, and so forth. But here we are, one amendment. That is all. We are not going to be allowed to have any other votes on amendments, except that one. ``You have 30 hours,'' I was told by Senators down in the well there. ``Well, you have 30 hours; you have the weekend, and your staff has the weekend. You have 30 hours.'' I have several amendments I would like to offer, but I cannot do it. The tree is filled. Remember the tree at the Garden of Eden? It is the first thing you read about in the Bible. The greatest scientific treatise ever written is that first chapter of Genesis. That will tell you more about science than many scientists today can tell you. It tells you the order of things in which they were created. The scientists of today will tell you that is the correct chronological order. Go back and read that first chapter of Genesis and you will read the chronological order of creation, and that was written thousands of years ago. What a piece of science that is. I have three grandsons, two of whom are physicists. I have a son-in- law who is a physicist. I have a grandson who married a physicist. So we have lots of physicists, lots of scientists in my family. But before all those scientists came into being, the greatest scientific treatise ever written had been written right there in the Book of Genesis. We have no reason to stay dumb about how creation went forward. It is right there. Anyhow, there it is for us. So here the Wall Street Journal editorialized today about the fallacy of pushing this bill through at such a late date. Here were these great Senators who stood up there in my face and two or three of them told me, ``Well, you have this weekend, you have 30 hours,'' as though I didn't know that. How many Senators would like to tell me that? One or two of them did. I did say to one that this is not a new kid on the block. I know about that 30 hours. Now look at what we have. I cannot offer an amendment, even though we have 30 hours. The tree is filled. But it is not that tree in the Garden of Eden. That is the tree of knowledge and we all can continue to learn. But I cannot offer an amendment. Our Republican friends would say you can go this far but no farther. You have an amendment pending, but that's all. That is the only amendment you are going to have to vote on before that 30 hours is up. How do you like being given that kind of medicine? That is what we have to deal with here. Here is what the Wall Street Journal said. Get this: There's little or nothing that this rump session can accomplish that couldn't be done better starting anew in January. That reminds me of the distinguished Senator from Texas. I love him in many ways, and I agree with him on occasion. He stood right here today and said, ``This bill is the best you will get. How many in here are willing to believe that by putting this over another 3 months they can get a better bill?'' I said, ``I do.'' But that was his position, that this is the best bill you are likely to get. Do I think we will get a better bill after 3 months in a new Congress? Yes, I do. But that was his question. I don't need to answer that. Let the Wall Street Journal answer that question. Do you think you can get a better bill if you wait 3 months? That is the question. The first question that was ever asked was asked by God as He went into the Garden of Eden and started looking for Adam--Adam and Eve in that garden. God was walking in the cool of the day and he was looking for Adam in that paradise setting. How lovely that must have been. Here is old Adam over here somewhere under a tree, or back in the bushes, with some figleaves hiding from God. God said: ``Adam, where art thou?'' That was the first question ever asked. The people are going to say to us: Senator, where were you? Those Senators who voted for cloture, God love them--and I love them and I respect their viewpoints. They have a right to cast the votes they want to cast them. I don't like to tell them how to vote. But let my constituents say: Robert, where were you? Where were you when you cast that vote? So here is what the Wall Street Journal would say: There's little or nothing that this rump session can accomplish that couldn't be done better starting anew in January. Hallelujah. Thank God for the Wall Street Journal. They answer the question well--better than I. There's little or nothing that this rump session can accomplish that couldn't be done better starting anew in January. That includes President Bush's priority of a new Department of Homeland Security . . . the proposal is mostly about rearranging the bureaucratic furniture . . . And as with any bill whipped through this quickly, we can expect to learn later about many bad ideas that deserved more scrutiny. Mr. President, at a later moment, I will ask unanimous consent that the entire editorial be printed in the Record but not at this point. I suspect it won't be long before we begin to hear about the bad ideas that deserved more scrutiny. Some Senators may find comfort in the fact that this bill has been touted as a compromise. It won't compare with the great compromise of July 16, 1787, which created this Senate. If it had not been for that compromise, you would not be here today, Mr. President. You would not be presiding over a Senate of equals, regardless of the size of your State, or the size of its population; you would not be in a Senate in which two Senators from the smallest State would have the same strength, as to their vote, as two Senators from the largest State in the Union. I would not be here. The Senator from New Hampshire would not be here. The Senator who is the minority leader from Mississippi would not be here. The Senator who is the majority leader, the Senator from South Dakota, would not be here. All of these pages, they would not be here. No, this would not be the Senate. But it is that Constitution--here it is; I hold it in my hand. Senators should, above all people, become more acquainted with this Constitution. Some Senators may find comfort in the fact that this bill has been touted as a compromise. I don't know who this bill was a compromise between, other than the White House and the congressional Republicans, who already supported some version of the President's original plan. Call me old-fashioned. Yes, there he is, there is that old-fashioned guy. I am married to an old-fashioned sweetheart. Thank God for her. She has been my sweetheart now for 65 years and going on quickly to the 66th. Thank God for that kind of an old-fashioned sweetheart. I hope she thinks the same thing about her old-fashioned husband--ha, ha, ha, that old-fashioned guy. That is the man. He has been around 85 years-- an old-fashioned guy. I remember a time, Mr. President, when compromises were crafted by individuals who had differing views on an issue. This kind of compromise, this 484 pages--let me make sure I am right. Yes, it is 484 difficult, complicated, hard-to-read, harder-to-understand pages. There it is. This kind of compromise is like legislative shadow boxing. Have you ever tried boxing? I tried it, and I got knocked on my anterior. That was the end of my boxing. I found I was not so good at boxing. This kind of compromise here is like some kind of shadow boxing. It would be laughable if it were not so serious. This kind of compromise is like legislative shadow boxing--punching and jabbing and sparring with absent opponents. The opponents are not there. This ephemeral compromise makes no concessions with regard to the President's efforts to exempt this new Department from public disclosure law, such as the Federal Advisory Committee Act. You will not find that spelled out, but you will find reference is made to it. You have to go beyond the plain print in section 871. You have to go beyond the plain print. It is referenced there, but you have to go back to the statute books to see what they are talking about. This ephemeral compromise makes no concessions with regard to the President's efforts to exempt the new Department from public disclosure laws, such as the Federal Advisory Committee Act. It includes no concessions with regard to the President's reorganizing the 28 agencies and offices being transferred to this new Department without congressional approval. I have never seen anything like it. In 50 years in Congress, I have never seen anything like it--never. All this without congressional approval. It includes only token concessions to those who have substantive, genuine reservations about this bill with regard to the civil service and collective bargaining issues. How can we pretend that this amendment is a serious attempt at a compromise when it is only an agreement between the President and the few supporters of the President's bill? Oh, there are compromises in this. Yes, there are compromises in this amendment. It compromises the rights of Federal workers. It compromises the civil liberties of the American people out there. It compromises your daddies' and mothers' civil liberties, the parents of these nice pages we have here. They are just the most wonderful people. They come here seeking to understand the legislative process. What are they getting? They are not getting the legislative process in this monstrosity. They are not getting the legislative process. These--I said kids; these are young people. They are all juniors in high school. They are at that tender age where they learn quickly. They have come here wanting to learn the legislative process. They are being cheated. I say to you young fine pages here, I love you. From time to time, I meet out in the corridor with the pages, Republicans and Democrats. I tell them good stories, I mean wholesome stories. That is right. They are wholesome stories. I tell them stories in which there is a moral lesson. I tell them the story of the house with the golden windows. I tell them the story written by that great Russian, Tolstoy, ``How Much Land Does A Man Need?'' I tell them the story about ``Acres of Diamonds'' that was told, I understand, 5,000 times by that great Chautauqua speaker, Russell Conwell. I tell these pages good stories, wholesome stories. I talk about the Bible. I talk about Milton. I talk about the Constitution. I talk about history. I talk about Nathan Hale to these young people here. Bless their hearts. I always am inspired when I talk to these young people. These are the cream of the crop. Mind you, there are millions across this country just like these. But they are being fooled. We are fooling these young people. They come here to learn the legislative process. What do they get from this bill? This is not the legislative process. They do not learn in this amendment. They will go back one day and they will say: I heard Senator Byrd say that was not how our laws are made. No. We short circuited that process on this amendment, this 484-page bill. Here it is, 484 pages. What is in it? Don't ask me. I know a few things that are in it, and I have heard other Senators talk about a few things that were left out of it in the darkness of the night. We talk about compromise. This 484-page monstrosity compromises the civil liberties of the American public. It compromises the constitutional doctrines of the separation of powers and checks and balances that we find in the Constitution, which I hold in my hand. This bill compromises the notion that the Senate should debate and amend legislation and act as the greatest deliberative body in the world before passing massive--massive--reorganizations of the Federal Government. Mr. President, we have allowed ourselves to be stampeded, and I could be as King Canute. A lot of King Canute's followers thought he could do anything. He thought he would disabuse his followers of that fallacy, that belief that King Canute could do anything. So he went down to the sands of the oceanside, and he commanded the waves to be still. The waves were not still. They did not go still, so the people finally understood that King Canute could speak to the ocean and it would not necessarily heed him. I say that to say this, Mr. President: I might as well speak to the ocean. I might as well be like King Canute as to speak to some of my colleagues here. My speech would fall upon deaf ears, and they would say: There he goes again, that old-fashioned guy who believes that we ought to take the time; there he goes again. We have allowed ourselves to be stampeded into passing this bill. Afraid to be on the wrong side of this issue, we hear cries from both sides of the aisle that we must support our President. We hear cries of, ``My President,'' ``My party,'' ``My Commander in Chief.'' When will we hear, Mr. President, ``My country''? When will we hear, ``My country''? Senators are obviously upset about the miscellaneous provisions that were included in this bill at the last minute. The Washington Post this morning outlined a number of these provisions ranging from language that would help the FBI obtain customer information from Internet service providers to language incorporated in the bill by the House Republican leadership that gives Texas A&M--I do not believe it mentioned Texas A&M--that gives Texas A&M the inside track in hosting the first university center on homeland security to be established within 1 year. It will not say that in the bill. Senators will not find that in the bill. But the language in the bill is so targeted only that one--at least that one institution would be most favored over others. Probably the most egregious provision inserted is a White House- backed provision designed to head off dozens of potential lawsuits against Eli Lilly and Company and other pharmaceutical giants that are being sued by parents who have linked their children's autism to those companies' childhood vaccines. How about that? I ask the distinguished Members of the other body. How do they feel about having passed this bill with that kind of language in it? Hear me over there at the other end of the Capitol. Yes, explain your vote, explain your vote to your constituents. You, back there in the other--we are not supposed to refer to the other body in our speeches, but the other body passed this bill in a hurry. Those in the other body who voted for this, go back and look at what you voted for. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?

Mr. BYRD. I will only be a moment. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, has referred to the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm. May I interpose this observation. Diogenes went about the streets of Athens with a lantern, saying that he was looking--in broad daylight--he was looking for a man, he was seeking a man. Plato, upon going to Syracuse, was asked by Hieron the--I wouldn't say he was a beneficent dictator. But he was asked why he came to Syracuse. He said: I came seeking an honest man. I rarely make the observation as a premise to what I am about to say--I believe the Senator from Texas is not only a man, but is also an honest man. He is very frank and open. He doesn't have to come to the floor with written speeches as I often do. He speaks from the heart and from the head and is very up front. He has always been that way. He explains his reasons. He doesn't hide his reasons. And he will answer your questions and he will answer honestly. So I pay tribute to the Senator from Texas in that regard. I am glad the distinguished Senator from North Dakota has given me the platform for a moment to say that. We may not agree with the distinguished Senator from Texas. I certainly don't agree with the request for some of the special interest provisions here in this bill. But I do say here is an honest man, as far as I am concerned. He is aboveboard. He will answer your questions. He doesn't need a written speech to do it. So I say I wish we had more Phil Gramms in the Senate. Excuse me for taking this time. I will say no more, except to thank him for the good relations.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

Mr. BYRD. I do not fully understand this request. I want to know what this does to homeland security.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, further reserving my right to object, and I will be very brief, I am supportive of the measure the distinguished majority leader is seeking to advance in connection with this request. Does this in any way have a psychological effect with respect to the cloture we are going to vote on this morning? I plead to Senators--further reserving my right to object--I plead with Senators not to invoke cloture today. I understand cloture will be invoked at some point. I just hope it will not be today. I hope we will have the weekend for our staffs to study this bill so that we will be better prepared after we have had more time to study it. What I am concerned about is the desire to get to the bill about which the majority leader is speaking and which I fully support. I hope that desire will not have some psychological impact on Senators causing them to vote for cloture today. I wonder if our two leaders would propose a unanimous consent request that would vitiate a cloture vote for today, push the cloture vote over until Monday. I know cloture is going to be invoked, but for God's sake, for Heaven's sake, for the sake of liberty and justice, and for the sake of Senators being able to understand what they are voting on in this 484-page bill that has been sprung on us--and we have only been able to see it at the beginning of Wednesday, the day before yesterday--would the leaders please consider at least vitiating that vote and putting it over until Monday so that we and our staffs will have some more time for study? For Heaven's sake, would the majority leader and minority leader consider this request? That is all I am asking. I know cloture is going to be invoked at some point, but for Heaven's sake, we have a right to know what is in this 484-page bill, and the people out there who are watching this debate through those electronic lenses have a right also to know. We have a duty to know what we are voting on. At this moment, as we get ready to invoke cloture, we do not know what is in this bill. Mr. President, I remove my reservation.

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.

Mr. BYRD. I yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield to the majority leader. I hope I retain my 2 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for what he has just called to the attention of the Senate. What he has made reference to, I have every reason to believe, is section 871 dealing with advisory committees. Let me read it. I will have more to stay about this. As a matter of fact, I will have an amendment to change this. It is section 871: Advisory Committees. (A) In General.--The Secretary may establish, appoint members of, and use the service of, advisory committees, as the Secretary may deem necessary. An advisory committee established under this section may be exempted by the Secretary from Public Law 92-463, but the Secretary shall publish notice in the Federal Register announcing the establishment of such a committee and identifying its purpose and membership. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, members of an advisory committee that is exempted by the Secretary under the preceding sentence who are special Government employees (as that term is defined in section 202 of title 18, United States Code) shall be eligible for certifications under subsection (b)(3) of section 208 of Title 18, United States Code, for official actions taken as a member of such advisory committee. A separate reading of this language does not stir one's blood, but a clear understanding of the laws that are referenced begin to stir one's blood. Under current law, advisory committees may be appointed and the President may exempt a committee on a case-by-case basis. The public has a right to know what these advisory committees are doing. The public has a right to know what is happening. They have a right to know what is going on in Government, in these advisory committees. But here is a provision that will give the Secretary blank authority to keep from the public the knowledge of what these advisory committees are saying, as to what's going on, and so on.

Mr. BYRD. How telling, how telling, how revealing what the distinguished Senator from Maryland just said in this excellent editorial in the Baltimore Sun. I thank him for that. Senators need to wake up. Senators need to wake up as to what is going on. Mr. President, I do not intend to take more time than I have because I know the leaders want to speak. How much time do I have?

Mr. BYRD. Does the distinguished Senator from Maryland have anything further to say?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Florida for his observations and for his contribution and for his service to his country, his service here in the Senate. Liberty, freedom, justice, and right cry out today to be heard here on the Senate floor. I urge Senators not to vote later today for cloture. Let's see what else is in this bill. Let us have time to amend it, to correct the errors that may be in it, on behalf of the American people. I ask that we not vote for cloture today. I suppose my pleadings, my importunings will fall upon deaf ears in many areas of the Senate Chamber, but please, let our constituents be heard on this bill which comes to us in the name of homeland security but within it has many injustices, many wrongs, I am sure, many things, many provisions the American people do not want. I yield to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Oh, yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BYRD. Let me compliment the distinguished Senator from Michigan for her correct, characteristic, acute perception of what is in this bill. She spoke about this very item on yesterday. I wonder how many Senators were listening. She is speaking again today, quite appropriately, calling it to the attention of the Senate and the American people. I thank her. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. What bill is the Senator referencing?

Mr. BYRD. Would the Chair please repeat the response that was given to the Senator from Michigan so we can hear it? I did not hear the response.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Just one quick observation. I hope the Senator will delete from his remarks which will appear in the Record any reference to the Holy Bible in the context that he was speaking. I do not think that has any place in this argument. I say that lovingly and fondly.