Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today not entirely with sadness in my heart but, rather, a sadness that is commingled with joy, as I look back across the 30 years I have known Jesse Helms as we have worked in this body. I can remember him when he came to this Senate Chamber 30 years ago: tall, strong, black hair. Some things have changed about him; some things have changed about me. But there are some things that have not changed. One of those things is my respect for him. He comes from a State which is the State in which I was born, North Carolina. I have a brother living in North Wilkesboro today. He became 89 or 90--I forget which--in August, last month. My dear mother is buried there in an unmarked grave. She died during the great influenza epidemic. She died on the night before the armistice was signed. I have a little pillow that she made. And I know that I have been guided by my mother's prayers over these soon to be 85 years, although I do not remember ever seeing her face or ever feeling the joy of a mother's kiss. But those North Carolina hills keep her in their bosom today, as they keep my father. The motto of the State of North Carolina is: ``To be rather than to seem.'' What a motto: ``To be rather than to seem.'' I believe, based on my relationship with Jesse Helms, that he typifies that motto: ``To be rather than to seem.'' I have always found him to be a gentleman. During the years in which I was majority leader, minority leader, and majority whip, I always found Jesse Helms to be someone with whom I could work. There were differences and there were difficulties at times--for instance, difficulties in breaking through a filibuster--but this man was always what he was, not what he seemed. He was what he was. He was not a man to be intimidated. He took a stand. He was willing to take a stand even though he might stand alone. And I have seen times when he stood alone, but it was without a tremor, without any indication that he would cut his sail. He had that sterling character that so many of the people of his generation displayed throughout their lifetimes. And the people of North Carolina are a naturally warm and gracious people, just like Jesse Helms. As I say, no matter what his position on an issue, no matter what his political feelings might be, he was always one with whom I could approach and sit down and talk. And he was a man with whom I could reason when I was the leader of this body. It is not an easy job. But being the man that Jesse Helms is, and standing for what he believes, standing against the odds--no matter what the press said, no matter what the pundits were saying, no matter, should I say, even what his colleagues were saying--he took his position and he never wavered, never wavered. I shall always treasure my work here with Jesse Helms. I think when Jesse Helms goes, something goes out of this Senate that we will not see again. I saw a lot of men like Jesse Helms when I came to this body 44 years ago--a lot of men and one woman like Jesse Helms. They were strong in their beliefs. They believed in the Constitution. They believed in this institution. They weren't looking for another political office. They wanted to be Senators. They were Senators. And they served their people the institution, and the Constitution well. In all these situations--and I remember Members like Jesse Helms-- there has been a wife who sacrificed, who stood there shoulder to shoulder with that Senator and who, like him, was always a gracious person, one who loved the Senate, one who served the Senate, just as the elected entity served it. I have great respect for Jesse Helms and his wife Dorothy. My wife and I today join in saying we will always remember their friendship. I will always remember this man from the mountains of North Carolina. I remember Grandfather Mountain in North Carolina. Here was a true gentleman of the Old South. A true gentleman of the Old South will leave this Senate. He won't leave my memory. He won't leave my affections. They will follow him. As Tennyson said, ``I am a part of all that I have been.'' And wherever I go, Jesse Helms will always be a part of me. He will go with my fondest affections. I thank Mr. Enzi for yielding to me at this moment. I am about to yield the floor. Let me, if I may, repeat the words of a short verse that are very appropriate in talking about Jesse Helms: Reputation--he raised its shaft In the crowded market place; He built it out of his glorious deeds, And carved them upon its face; He crowned its towering top with bays That a worshiping world supplied; Then he passed--his monument decayed, And his laurels drooped and died. Character--he built its shaft With no thought of the pillar to be; He wrought intangible things like love And truth and humanity. Inseparable things like sacrifice And sympathy and trust; Yet, steadfast as the eternal hills It stood when he was dust North Carolina sent to the Senate one of its favorite sons, and this son of North Carolina will never forget Jesse Helms and will never cease to respect him. Even when I differed with him perhaps on an issue now and then, there was always great respect, knowing that here was a man who believed in serving his people and standing for what his people expected him to stand for. May God always be with you, Senator Helms, and with your charming wife Dorothy. May God always bless her. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I am not complaining. I would also like to quote George Romney, who used to be Governor of Michigan.

Mr. BYRD. Here is what he said: I didn't say that I didn't say it. I said that I didn't say that I said that. I want to make that perfectly clear.

Mr. BYRD. Did the Senator want me to yield to him?

Mr. BYRD. I yield to the distinguished Senator without losing my right to the floor.

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

Mr. BYRD. I just want to say this: I agree with what the Senator said in respect to the appropriations bills. We had this talk--those of us who agreed on appropriations bills. He is ready to vote on them. So am I. I hope the leadership will attempt to get some of the other appropriations bills up. Let us see who is holding up appropriations bills. We have to do the Health and Human Services bill. We have that. We have all of these bills backed up, and not a single one of the 13 appropriations bills has been sent to the Senate. I thank the Senator for making that point. He is ready. Let us vote on those bills.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Who has the floor?

Mr. BYRD. I want to inquire as to how long the Senator believes he will be needing the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, amidst the wall-to-wall reporting on Iraq that has become daily grist for the Nation's news media, a headline in this morning's USA Today leaped out from the front page: ``In Iraq's arsenal, Nature's deadliest poison.'' The article describes the horrors of botulinum toxin, a potential weapon in Iraq's biological warfare arsenal. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, botulinum toxin is the most poisonous substance known. We know that Saddam Hussein produced thousands of litres of botulinum toxin in the run up to the Gulf war. We also know where some of the toxin came from. Guess. The United States, which approved shipments of botulinum toxin from a nonprofit scientific specimen repository to the government of Iraq in l986 and l988. I recently asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about these shipments during an Armed Services Committee hearing a week ago. I repeat today what I said to him then: In the event of a war with Iraq, might the United States be facing the possibility of reaping what it has sown? The threat of chemical and biological warfare is one of the most terrifying prospects of a war with Iraq, and it is one that should give us serious pause before we embark on a course of action that might lead to an all-out, no-holds-barred conflict. Earlier this week, British Prime Minister Tony Blair released an assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program which contained the jolting conclusion that Iraq could launch chemical or biological warheads within 45 minutes of getting the green light from Saddam Hussein. The British government assessment, while putting Iraq's chemical and biological capabilities in starker terms than perhaps we have seen before, closely tracks with what U.S. officials have been warning for some time: namely, Saddam Hussein has the means and the know-how to wage biological and chemical warfare, and he has demonstrated his willingness to use such weapons. By the grace of God, he apparently has not yet achieved nuclear capability. On the matter of biological warfare, Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that many improvements have been made to the protective gear worn by American soldiers and to the sensors used to detect chemical or biological agents. But according to the USA Today article on botulinum toxin, U.S. troops would be just as vulnerable to botulinum toxin today as they were during the Gulf war. This is what the article states: There's still no government-approved vaccine, and the only antitoxin is made by extracting antibodies from the blood of vaccinated horses using decades-old technology. Last year's anthrax attack on the U.S. Senate gave all of us in this Chamber firsthand experience with biological warfare and new insight into the insidious nature of biological weapons. And that attack--hear me now--involved only about a teaspoon or so of anthrax sealed in an envelope. The potential consequences of a massive bioweapons attack against American soldiers on the battlefield boggle the imagination. My concerns over biological warfare were heightened last week when I came across a report in Newsweek that the U.S. Government had cleared numerous shipments of viruses, bacteria, fungi, and protozoa to the Government of Iraq in the mid-1980s, at a time when the U.S. was cultivating Saddam Hussein as an ally against Iran. The shipments included anthrax and botulinum toxin. Moreover, during the same time period, the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, was also shipping deadly toxins to Iraq, including vials of West Nile fever virus and Dengue fever. This is not mere speculation. I have the letters from the CDC and the American Type Culture Collection laying out the dates of shipments, to whom they were sent, and what they included. This list is extensive and scary anthrax, botulinin toxin, and gas gangrene to name just a few. There were dozens and dozens of these pathogens shipped to various ministries within the Government of Iraq. Why does this matter today? Why do I care about something that happened nearly 20 years ago when Saddam Hussein was considered to be a potential ally and Iran's Ayatollah Khomeni was public enemy No. 1 in the United States? I care because it is relevant to today's debate on Iraq. This is not yesterday's news. This is tomorrow's news. Federal agencies have documents detailing exactly what biological material was shipped to Iraq from the United States. We have a paper trail. We not only know that Iraq has biological weapons, we know the type, the strain, and the batch number of the germs that may have been used to fashion those weapons. We know the dates they were shipped, and the addresses to which they were shipped. We have in our hands--now get this--the equivalent of a Betty Crocker cookbook of ingredients that the U.S. allowed Iraq to obtain and that may well have been used to concoct biological weapons. At last week's Armed Services Committee hearing, Secretary Rumsfeld said he has no knowledge of any such shipments, and doubted that they ever occurred. He seemed to be a little affronted at the very idea that the United States would ever countenance entering into such a deal with the devil. Secretary Rumsfeld should not shy away from this information. On the contrary, he should seek it out if he does not know it. Let's find out. No one is alleging that the United States deliberately sneaked biological weapons to Iraq under the table during the Iran-Iraq war. I am not suggesting that. I am confident that our Government is not that stupid. It was simply a matter of business as usual, I suppose. We freely exchange information and technology including scientific research with our friends. At the time, I suppose, Iraq was our friend. If there is any lesson to be learned from the Iraq experience, it is that we should choose our friends more carefully, see further down the road and exercise tighter controls on the export of materials that could be turned against us. Today's friend may be tomorrow's enemy. This is not the first time I have advocated stricter controls on exports. In fact, I added an amendment to the 1996 Defense Authorization Act that was specifically designed to curb the export of dual-use technology to potential adversaries of the United States. In the case of the biological materials shipped to Iraq, the Commerce Department and the CDC have lists of the shipments. The Defense Department ought to have the same lists so that the decisionmakers will know exactly what types of biological agents American soldiers may face in the field. Doesn't that make sense? Shouldn't the Defense Department know what is out there, so that the generals can know what counter- measures they might need to take to protect their troops? I believe the answer to those questions is yes, and so I am sending the information I have to Secretary Rumsfeld. He said he did not have any such information so I am going to send it to Secretary Rumsfeld. No matter how repugnant he finds the idea of the U.S. even inadvertently aiding Saddam Hussein in his quest to obtain biological weapons, the Secretary should have this information at hand, and should make sure that his field commanders also have it. The most deadly of the biological agents that came from the U.S. were shipped to the government of Iraq by the American Type Culture Collection, ATCC, a non-profit organization that provides biological materials to industry, government, and educational institutions around the world. According to its own records, the ATCC sent 11 separate shipments of biological materials to the government of Iraq between 1985 and 1988. The shipments included a witches brew of pathogens including anthrax, botulinum toxin, and gangrene. Meanwhile, the CDC was shipping toxic specimens to Iraq--including West Nile virus and dengue fever--from January 1980 until October 13, 1993. The nexus between the U.S.-approved shipments of pathogens and the development of Iraq's biological weapons program is particularly disturbing. Consider the following chain of events: In May of 1986, the ATCC reported the first shipments of anthrax and botulinum toxin to Iraq. A second shipment including anthrax and botulinum toxin was sent to Iraq in September of 1988. At approximately the same time that the first shipment was sent in April of 1986, Iraq turned from studying literature on biological warfare to experimenting with actual samples of anthrax and botulinum toxin. The turning point, according a report to the United Nations Security Council from the U.N. weapons inspection team, came when ``bacterial strains were received from overseas'' and delivered to an Iraqi biological weapons laboratory. In April of 1988, the U.N. weapons inspectors reported that Iraq began research on the biological agent Clostridium perfringens, more commonly known as gas gangrene. Clostridium perfringens cultures were among the materials shipped to Iraq by the ATCC in both 1986 and 1988. These are only a few examples of the pathogens that Iraq is known to have imported from the United States. It is not known how many of these materials were destroyed following the Persian Gulf war, or how many Iraq continues to possess, whether they are still viable, or whether in its pursuit of biological weapons, Iraq has developed ways to extend the shelf life of toxic biological agents. There is much that we do not know about Iraq's biological warfare program. But there are two important facts in which we can have great confidence: Iraq has biological weapons, and Iraq obtained biological materials from the United States in the 1980s. I asked Secretary Rumsfeld, at last week's Armed Services Committee hearing, whether we might be reaping what we have sown in Iraq, in terms of biological weapons. The question was rhetorical, but the link between shipments of biological material from the United States and the development of Iraq's biological weapons program is more than just an historical footnote. The role that the U.S. may have played in helping Iraq to pursue biological warfare in the 1980s should serve as a strong warning to the President that policy decisions regarding Iraq today could have far reaching ramifications on the Middle East and on the United States in the future. In the 1980s, the Ayatollah Khomeni was America's sworn enemy, and the U.S. Government courted Saddam Hussein in an effort to undermine the Ayatollah and Iran. Today, oh, how different. Saddam Hussein is America's biggest enemy, America's greatest enemy, America's most dangerous enemy, and the U.S. is said to be making overtures today to Iran. The Washington Post reported today that the President is expected to authorize military training for at least 1,000 members of the Iraqi opposition to help overthrow Saddam Hussein. The opposition groups include the Kurds in the north, and the Shiite Muslims in the south. The decision to provide military training to Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein would mark a major change in U.S. policy, ending a prohibition on lethal assistance to the Iraqi opposition. It is not a decision that should be undertaken lightly. Although administration officials told the Post that initial plans called for modest steps that would allow members of the Iraqi opposition to provide liaison to the local population and perhaps guard prisoners of war, the officials did not shut the door on providing training and equipment for more lethal activities. ``Nobody is talking about giving them guns yet,'' one official was quoted as saying. ``That would be a dramatic step, but there are many dramatic steps yet to be taken.'' Has the administration adequately explored the potential ramifications of creating ethnic armies of dissidents in Iraq? Could the U.S. be laying the groundwork for a brutal civil war in Iraq? Could this proposed policy change precipitate a deadly border conflict between the Kurds and Turkey? Could we perhaps be setting the stage for a Shiite-ruled Iraq that could align itself with Iran and result in the domination of the Middle East by hard-line Shiite Muslims along the lines of the Ayatollah Khomeni? These are legitimate questions. They are troubling questions. And they should be carefully thought through before we unleash an open- ended attack on Iraq. We had better think about these questions. We better ask these questions. The administration had better listen and so had the American people. There are many outstanding questions that the United States should consider before marching in lockstep down the path of committing America's military forces to effect the immediate overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The peril of biological weapons is only one of those considerations, but it is an important one. Has it been thought out? Has it been discussed? Has the administration said anything to Congress about this, whether or not the administration has explored these questions? Here are the questions. Don't say they were not asked. The more we know now, the better off our troops will be in the future. Decisions involving war and peace--the most fundamental life and death decisions--should never be rushed through this Senate. I say that again. Decisions involving war and peace--the most fundamental of life and death decisions--they affect your sons and daughters out there, your blood. Such decisions should never be rushed through, never be rushed through or muscled through in haste. Our Founding Fathers understood that and they wisely vested in the Congress--not in the President, not in any President, Democrat or Republican--the power to declare war. We are going to discuss this. There is going to be a discussion of it. It is not going to be rammed through all that fast. Congress has been presented with a Presidential request for authorization to use military force against Iraq. We now have the responsibility to consider that request, consider it carefully, consider it thoroughly, and consider it on our own timetable. I urge my colleagues to do just that and avoid the pressure--avoid the pressure to rush to judgment on such an important and vital and far-reaching and momentous matter. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 10 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Democratic leader for the position he has taken here today. I commend him for the restraint he has shown in his remarks. I, too, was astounded upon reading this story in the Washington Post this morning. It reads as follows in part: As he seeks to boost Republican candidates in the midterm elections, President Bush is increasing his emphasis on terrorism and national security, shedding his previous determination to demonstrate his concern about the flagging economy. Four times in the past two days, Bush has suggested that democrats do not care about national security, saying on Monday that the Democratic-controlled Senate is ``not interested in the security of the American people.'' His remarks, intensifying a theme he introduced last month, were quickly seconded and disseminated by House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). At a fundraiser for GOP House candidate Adam Taff in Kansas Monday, Vice President Cheney said security would be bolstered if Taff were to defeat Rep. Dennis Moore (D-Kan.). ``Cheney talks about Iraq at congressional fundraiser/ Electing Taff would aid war effort,'' read the headline in the Topeka Capital-Journal. Mr. President, are we to believe this? Are we to believe that this President said what I have just quoted? This is the President who was going to change the tone in Washington. I am terribly disappointed. We are entering an election. War clouds loom over this country. Yet the President would say the Democratic- controlled Senate is ``not interested in the security of the American people.'' What about Max Cleland? Is he interested in the security of the American people? What about Danny Inouye? Is he interested in the security of the American people? I am disgusted by the tenor of the war debate that has seemingly overtaken this capital city. Here is the President of the Senate, the Vice President of the United States, out campaigning. The President is campaigning using war talk to win the election. The Vice President of the United States is barnstorming for Republican candidates. There, in at least one instance, he was telling voters that electing Republicans would aid the war effort. Is the President determined to make his party--that great party of Abraham Lincoln--the war party? What would Abraham Lincoln have to say if he were here? This war strategy seems to have been hatched by political strategists intent on winning the midterm election at any cost, even if that cost places this Nation on the brink of battle and the Nation's sons and daughters there on that brink. It is despicable. The distinguished majority leader used the word ``outrageous.'' He is exactly right. It is despicable that any President would attempt to use the serious matter of impending war as a tool in a campaign war. I am not going to continue to be silent. The blood of our sons and daughters, our soldiers, sailors, and airmen, has far more value than a few votes in a ballot box. There is nothing more sobering than a decision to go to war, but the administration has turned the decision into a bumper sticker election theme. That is what I felt I saw in the beginning of this war on terrorism. It was being used politically also. It is clear now. It is out in the open. There it is. For the President to suggest the Senate is not interested in the security of the American people is outrageous. It is insulting. It is wrong, wrong, wrong. To suggest that one is unpatriotic simply because one is affiliated with a certain party and may oppose a war that may have horrendous consequences is irresponsible--irresponsible. It is the worst kind of political opportunism. I have been in this Congress 50 years. I have never seen a President of the United States or a Vice President of the United States stoop to such low level. It is your blood, your sons and daughters. Those who are looking at the Senate through the electronic lenses, it is your blood, your treasure. For the first time in the history of the Republic, the Nation is considering a preemptive strike against a sovereign state. I will not be silenced. I have no brief for Iraq, but I am not going to be silenced. I will not give the benefit of the doubt to the President. I will give the benefit of the doubt to the Constitution. I will give the benefit of the doubt to the American people who will soon be called upon, if this President has his way, to give their sons and daughters, the blood of this country. I do not defend the Iraqi regime. I do not justify its actions. But I also do not want to commit our sons and daughters to battle without a thorough understanding and a thorough debate. You silence me, if you can. There are others in this body who are going to speak up for their people. This administration is making the war their battle cry. That is their bumper sticker politics. They are putting it front and center. They don't want to talk about domestic issues. They don't want to talk about those things. So they choose to make the war center stage. OK. ``Lay on, McDuff. And damn'd be him that first cries, ``Hold, enough!''' My people in West Virginia expect me to speak out. If the Lord lets me live, I shall do that. I also do not want to commit our sons and daughters to battle without a thorough understanding of the motivations, the strategies, the repercussions of that battle. America fights wars, but America does not begin wars. This is my battle cry. This is yours. Each of you has sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. There it is. That doesn't give this President, that doesn't give this Nation, a right to launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. America fights wars, but America does not start wars. The American people have serious questions. The Nation's allies have serious questions. Members of this body have serious questions. These must be answered before going to war, and it is not now, nor was it ever, unpatriotic to ask questions. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, can we have order?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. There remain 4 minutes 19 seconds.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Chair inform me when I have 1 minute remaining.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee and others have claimed that my amendment would delay the implementation of the Department. The exact opposite is true. My amendment will provide in an inordinate way the expeditious functioning and the expeditious transfers of the various agencies in the Department. Let me say this, too. The people who are going to protect this country under a new Homeland Security Department are protecting this country today. They are on the borders every night. They are at the ports of entry. They are at the airports. We saw only recently the FBI arrest of six persons of Yemeni descent. According to the FBI, they constitute a terrorist cell. So the FBI is out there doing its job. We don't have a Department of Homeland Security. It didn't keep the FBI from doing its work. These people are out there every night and every day, 24 hours a day. So the work is going forward. Even if we never create a Homeland Security Department, these people are out there, and they are performing their work, and doing it admirably. The argument has been made that Senators should oppose my amendment because it would undo the work of the Governmental Affairs Committee and force the Senate to readdress issues that have already been decided. But the Senate has not decided these issues, and they won't be decided even if we pass the Lieberman bill. Of the 80-plus Federal agencies that currently have homeland security-related functions, we don't know why 28 of those agencies and offices were chosen by the administration and endorsed by the Governmental Affairs Committee to be transferred to this new Department. We don't know how the administration will reorganize these agencies once they are transferred. We don't even have a budget for this new Department. So we have no idea about the costs associated with implementing it or how the administration plans to pay for this Department. We don't know if and by how much worker protection will be curtailed within this new Department. Yet the Lieberman bill would have the Congress grant the statutory powers to the administration to create this Department and require only that the President report back to the Congress and to the American people after these decisions have already been made. The Congress would walk away from this new Department and require only that the President let us know how everything turns out. My amendment seeks to create a process by which the Congress would retain control over the implementation of the new Department. It seeks to ensure that this Department is not left to languish in a limbo of chaos and confusion. My amendment seeks to ensure that the Congress thoroughly consider what we are doing before granting broad authority to the administration with regard to such fundamental concerns as civil service protections and the privacy rights and civil liberties of the American public.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is my understanding Senator Thompson wants to speak. I ask the Chair to alert me when I have consumed 4 minutes and when I have consumed 5 minutes. I hope by the time I use 5 minutes Mr. Thompson will be in the Chamber so the other side can be heard, I can then speak, and then Mr. Lieberman can close out the debate. I congratulate Mr. Lieberman, the Governmental Affairs Committee, and all of the staff members of that committee. They have worked hard, they have worked long, and they have produced a bill that is, in my judgment, a great improvement over the House bill. My amendment only addresses title I of the Governmental Affairs bill. The other titles are not touched by my amendment. What does my amendment do? My amendment substitutes for title I in the Lieberman bill in a way that provides congressional oversight and a systematic and orderly process by which the agencies are transferred into the new Department. My amendment provides for the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. My amendment provides for the same superstructure as does the Lieberman amendment: in other words, the same directorates in title I and the same number of Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and so on. Those are how the two titles, title I in the Lieberman bill and title I in the Byrd amendment, are the same. What is the difference, then? The difference is my amendment provides for an orderly process whereby, in every 120 days over the next 13 months, there will be a transfer of agencies into the Department. So these will occur at 120- day intervals, unlike the Lieberman bill, which provides for the wholesale transfer over the next 13 months; it could come early, it could come late, it could come earlier than 90 days after the passage of the bill, or it could come as late as the close of the transition period, which is 12 months following the first 30 days. Mr. Lieberman says the Department will be up and running in 13 months under his legislation. But his legislation requires only that agencies be transferred by the conclusion of the 13 months. It doesn't say they will be up and running. His bill in that respect is exactly like my amendment. Both the Lieberman bill and the Byrd amendment provide for the conclusions of the transfers of agencies over the 13 months--by the end of the transition period, which is the end of the 13 months. Neither his bill nor my amendment provides that the Department will be ``up and running,'' as the distinguished Senator has said. No legislation can guarantee when the Department will be ``up and running.'' It will likely be years, which is why Congress needs to ensure a continuing role for itself. So there will be an orderly process under the Byrd amendment, and the chaos that will occur under the Lieberman proposal will be avoided. Congress is kept involved under the Byrd amendment, which means that the Lieberman committee will be kept involved. My amendment provides for the protection of employee rights, privacy, and civil liberties. How does it do that? Because Congress stays involved.

Mr. BYRD. There are several speakers who will support my amendment, and each speaker has been allotted 5 minutes. Will the Chair kindly remind each speaker when 4 minutes of the 5 have elapsed?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Congress is involved. Mr. Lieberman's committee will be involved time and again--once, twice, three times. So Congress will be there, looking over the shoulder of the agencies, so to speak, looking over the shoulder of the administration, looking over the shoulder of the President. The President has said he needs flexibility. We hear that worker rights will be challenged, will be jeopardized. That is not true under my amendment because of the fact that Congress will always be there, looking over the shoulders of those who would be acting to constitute the agency transfers. Time and again, the workers' rights will be under surveillance because Congresses will not pass this bill and then walk away, as would be the case in the Lieberman bill, in which instance the Congress would pass the bill now, and then for the next 13 months----

Mr. BYRD. Over the next 13 months, Congress would walk away to the sidelines. So under my amendment, we are not going to say: Mr. President, here is the bill. You take it. Just report back to us from time to time and let us know how it is working. Congress is not going to relegate itself to a zero. Congress is going to be involved. Congress will be there to protect worker rights, to protect privacy, to protect civil liberties. So I urge the Senators to vote for my amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will tell you what is delaying the work of homeland security--the intransigence on the part of the President. He had an opportunity to sign an appropriations bill that would provide $2.5 billion for homeland security--a total of $5.1 billion. He had an opportunity to sign it as an emergency. All it needed was his name. He had 30 days in which to consider it. He steadfastly refused to sign his name. This is money that is awaiting the President's signature to go throughout this country to aid the people at the local level in making preparations to avoid another terrorist attack, and to ameliorate the effects of such attacks if they occur.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds for each side.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Somewhere between $100 billion and $200 billion, chicken feed. That is nothing, he says. That is nothing. Yet $9 billion is like a bone in the throat to this OMB Director down here, Mitch Daniels, and the President and the administration. They are hung up on $9 billion. But when it comes to Iraq, no; $100 billion, no, $200 billion, no.