Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Will Senator yield? Who are the people underneath in the Senator's amendment? I will tell you who the people are underneath. They are people I am afraid of. The people underneath in the Senator's amendment--I am looking at that chart. I am going to ask to have a chart from my office brought up, too. It is the people underneath I am afraid of. The people underneath are downtown. They are the people who are saying: Let's get on with it. Let's pass this bill and give the President flexibility, and all this stuff. I trust the people underneath, if it is Senator Lieberman's committee. I trust them, if they are underneath. That is why I put them front and center in my amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, may I respond to the distinguished Senator? It is all going to be in the Senator's hands, under my amendment. My amendment would require the Secretary to send up to the Congress his recommendations for implementing and filling in the directorates. What will happen when those recommendations come to Congress? They will be under the jurisdiction of the committee that is chaired so ably by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. It is all going to be in the Senator's hands. I will trust the Senator to work in his committee to get those details and recommendations, to weigh them, vote them up or down, amend them, and report to the Senate. As I have indicated so many times, I am perfectly willing and will be glad to help work out some expedited procedures whereby this will be done. The whole matter will be in the Senator's hands. I would trust the Senator from Connecticut and his committee far more than I would trust that crowd down on the other end of the avenue. I am talking about the OMB Director, and others. I trust the Senator. I take my hat off to this Senator from Connecticut. When we say that on February 3 something will happen, on June 3 something will happen, on October 1 something will happen, and in the meantime these matters will go to the committee chaired by the Senator from Connecticut, we trust that Senator to see that the work is done, that it gets done. I don't trust those at the other end of the avenue who will have the thing handed to them, lock, stock, and barrel--take it all; take it all. I hope the Senator knows I trust him and I have great faith that he and his committee will expedite this action, that they will do a much better job, will keep the hand on the wheel, and the American people to whom the distinguished Senator has so properly referred will be much better protected. I think they would much more trust the elected representatives who are involved on that committee to do a good job and to see that the work is more expeditiously done. Finally, I will say this: My amendment expedites the work of creating this Department--expedites; doesn't delay but expedites. Read the amendment.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I do not intend to take the floor long, but I had understood that Mr. Lieberman would allow me to address some questions to him at a point while he held the floor. He must have let that slip his mind because he yielded to others, which is all right; I want him to do what he wants to if they have questions to ask, and now I have the floor. I will address just a few of the points that the distinguished Senator had. Of course, the distinguished Senator has pride in the work of his committee, under his chairmanship and under the cochairmanship of the ranking member, Mr. Thompson. Of course he has pride. And he has great expertise, his committee does, certainly, with all the Members of it, great expertise in the subject matter of the legislation. I am not on that committee. I said that before. I come as just an ordinary Senator. I am not a member of the committee. I am not an elected part of the leadership. I am President pro tempore by virtue of my long service here in my party and in the Senate, but I am an upstart when it comes to this legislation. I just came in the house out of the rain. I can understand the distinguished Senator's pride in his work. Who wouldn't be proud after spending all these months? I know that he is proud. But are we supposed to accept a piece of legislation without amending it because of the pride of authorship of a chairman of the committee, or any other Senator? The distinguished Senator has asked me, as the chairman of my committee, how would I feel about bringing a piece of legislation--I think my words are being spoken in the spirit of what I think the Senator was saying. Unlike most other Senators, I cannot write down rapidly, quickly, what Senators are saying. I have a little trouble remembering exactly what they said, and if I misstate the portent of his question to me during his statement, I would be happy if I were corrected. I understood the distinguished chairman of the committee which has jurisdiction over the pending matter, I understood him to ask me, as chairman, how would I like to bring a bill out of my committee to the floor that has a certain amount of moneys for this and for that and had funds, line items, for certain programs, certain projects, how would I like it if someone offered an amendment to take all that away and change that to direct those funds to some other agencies. I assure Members I would like for that work of my committee, along with Senator Stevens and the other 13 Republican members and the other 14 Democratic members, to be taken as something that did not, was not worthy of the attention of the Senator and to take all that and just give a blank check. Instead of allocating the moneys the committee had determined in the ways that the committee had determined, the Appropriations Committee had determined, just change it all and say make it a blank check. No, I wouldn't like that. And I don't like the blank check that we are about to give the administration in this bill. The distinguished Senator says he has pride in the work of the committee and doesn't want to see it changed. He would hope it would not be changed by my amendment, certainly, he says. What did the distinguished Senator and his committee do? They wrote a blank check, as it were. They say to the administration: Here, we will pass this bill, and we are going to turn it over to you, lock, stock, and barrel. We are going to move off to the sidelines, and you can do it as you will. Here are the bureaus. Here are the directorates. Here is the superstructure, they say. Now give to the administration, over the next 13 months, without any further action by the Congress, the transfer of these various agencies, functions, and employees into the new Department. It is yours. We will have no further say in it. Oh, you can come up. You can come before us and submit reports and all that. But by this law we are passing, that is all you can do, and it is all we will do. Here it is. Take it all. You have a blank check. No, I wouldn't want to have someone take an appropriations bill that came out of my committee and strike out all of the line items, all of the provisions, all of the functions and money for functions, and so on, and say just give them a blank check. No, I am not for that. But that is what is being done by the bill of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. His is striking out the details which my amendment would write in. My amendment would keep the Congress involved. Congress would have oversight, and time and again we would require, in my amendment, that the administration make its recommendations for legislation and those recommendations would go back to the committee, chaired by Mr. Lieberman, and he would have an opportunity to take a new look at it and review it. Congress could conduct oversight. But he is not going to allow that under his proposal. He is going to say: Here it is. Mr. President, we are not going to fill in the dots. We leave all that to you. You have 13 months in which to do it. You have 13 months to fill in the dots, fill in the details, determine which agencies will go into the Department, and there it is. Also, the distinguished Senator talks about the agencies. Yet the distinguished Senator and his committee, they don't determine the agencies, what agencies will go into the Department. They don't determine those. I don't know right now what agencies the distinguished Senator from Connecticut is talking about. Now the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, who is still on the floor, I hope--I would love for him to stay, to remain so I can respond to the points he has made and the questions he has asked. He says the Byrd amendment strikes at the heart of the Lieberman bill. I would like to know how it strikes at the heart of the Lieberman bill. It improves and strengthens the Lieberman bill. He says the Byrd amendment would pull out of the bill most of the work the committee has done. Why, it doesn't do that at all. I will tell you what is pulled out of the bill, a good bit of the work that was in the Lieberman bill. The Thompson amendment struck titles II and III from the Lieberman bill. That is what pulled a lot of the heart out of the bill. I didn't do that. I didn't strike titles II and III. My amendment doesn't strike titles II and III. They are already out of the bill. That was done by the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson. That is what struck the heart out of the bill. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut--I am trying to read my own feeble handwriting--says there is a sense of urgency to get on with this matter. There have been some who have been referring to this bill as the greatest reorganization since the National Security Act of 1947. Someone just the other day, maybe it was the President--I might be wrong. If I am wrong, I hope someone will correct me--who was comparing this reorganization with the reorganization of the Defense Department, of the military, the creation of the Defense Department in 1947, saying that is the role model. Someone said that is the role model, the creation of the National Security Act, pulling these various military agencies into one department, the Department of Defense. If that was the role model, if that is the ideal, then how long did it take for the National Security Act to pull these agencies together? How long did it take Congress to pull these agencies together, working with the President and working, by the way, with the military in this Government? It took 4 years. There were many bills offered in Congress. Committees did much work on that matter. It wasn't done overnight. It wasn't done in a week. It wasn't done in a month or 6 months. It took years, 4 years. I can't understand why someone would say: Oh, we have done all this work. Of course, the committee has done a lot of work. I have already indicated to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, I know his committee has put a lot of work in on this bill. But after he has laid out a litany of actions, a litany of hearings, and so on and so on, all of that doesn't really compare with the time that was put into the creation of the National Security Act, the creation of the Defense Department. So here I can't understand all of this talk about a sense of urgency in this bill because it wasn't too long ago that the President was saying why do we need it? We don't need a new Department, and so was Mr. Ridge saying the same thing. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut says this is a work in progress. So apparently the work in progress is going to be done by the administration over the next 13 months. My amendment seeks to flesh out the Department, flesh out the director- ates, and do it in an orderly way and with Congress conducting oversight throughout. So I have listened with great interest to the distinguished Senator and his defense of this bill. But I say that any time a bill comes out of my committee on appropriations, I expect it to be amended. And it isn't because I take pride in the authorship and the work of the committee that I fight another amendment. I never oppose another amendment simply on that basis, that my committee has conducted hearings. We conducted 5 days of hearings on the homeland security budget earlier this year. But I am always expecting amendments to be offered. I don't oppose another amendment just on that basis. After all, the idea here is to improve the work product. That is why the Senate is one of the two greatest upper bodies ever created. It is why the Senate is the premier upper body of the world today. It has unlimited debate, and it has the right to amend. But to hand it over to the administration, lock, stock, and barrel, and say, Here it is, here is the superstructure, here we provide for some under secretaries, assistant secretaries, and deputy secretaries--and, of course, it doesn't have title I or title II. That was taken out by the fine Senator on the Republican side of the aisle. Those two titles have been eliminated. They were moved out of this bill, and I am so proud those two titles are gone. They are gone. Here it is, lock, stock and barrel, and you take it and fill it out. You have 13 months in which to do it. Here it is. Take it and fill it up. This is the Byrd amendment. I don't want that because that would fill in some of the details. Congress, the representatives of the people, would fill in the details, some of the details with the directorates. I am sorry the distinguished Senator from Connecticut is totally, I would say, misapprehensive of my amendment. It plainly states what it will do. I am sorry. He is a good lawyer. He can take the easy side of the debate and make a different case. He can take an apple, shine it up, and make it so you would think it were an orange. He is a good lawyer. I don't speak disrespectfully of him. There are lots of good lawyers in this country. He is trying to tell the American people that the Byrd amendment would rip the heart out of his amendment. It doesn't do that. It makes his proposition better. I think the Senator wonders about the 13-month deadline. I have said that my amendment would complete the action in the Department and directorates, and the very agencies--although I don't know what agencies there are. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut hasn't yet told us what agencies are going to be put into the directorates. Here is the legislation, my amendment that says, yes, the whole thing will be completed in the same time period--namely, 13 months roughly-- that obtains in the case of the Lieberman proposal. Here is the language. Subsection (e), ``Deadline for Congressional Action: Not later than 13 months after the date of enactment of this act, the Congress shall complete action on all supporting and enabling legislation described under subsection (a), (b), or (c).'' There it is. In the meantime, we would fill in the details. Congress would have its hand on the throttle as we went forward in filling out in these various five directorates in title I.

Mr. BYRD. I believe the clerk earlier read, when I offered the amendment, the clerk misstated the number to be 4644. Has that now been corrected? It was No. 4641, which I think the clerk stated, but the amendment is numbered 4644.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Madam President, the underlying first-degree amendment, which is the subject of the cloture vote this afternoon, provides $825 million in emergency funds to the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. That money will be used to repay the extraordinary fire suppression costs incurred by those agencies over the past several months. As many of our colleagues know, particularly those who represent Western States, 2002 is turning out to be one of the most devastating fire seasons on record. Over the past 10 years, the average number of acres burned by fire between January 1 and September 16 has been 3.4 million acres. This year, however, the comparable number of acres burned is 6.4 million; almost twice the 10-year average. But this problem is much more than just the numbers of acres burned. The devastation and destruction resulting from these fires is almost too much to comprehend. Fire suppression costs will exceed $1.5 billion. Nearly 3,000 structures have been destroyed, including 1,313 homes. And, most tragic of all, 21 citizens have lost their lives fighting these treacherous fires. Clearly, Madam President, this situation amounts to a domestic emergency of historic proportions. That is why Senator Burns and I proposed this amendment and why so many of our colleagues have joined us in this endeavor. Indeed, even the President has come to appreciate the need for this assistance, as evidenced by his August 28 funding request to Congress. Madam President, it is of the utmost importance that we move forward on this matter, and that we do so in a timely manner. In fact, I would remind my colleagues that the authority to designate such funds as an emergency expires on September 30. Consequently, if this bill is not signed into law by the end of the month, there is a very real possibility that these funds will not be made available. I urge my colleagues to support the cloture motion, and help us in our effort to help our firefighters. Madam President, I yield the floor. How much time does the distinguished Senator from North Dakota wish?

Mr. BYRD. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, does the Senator want more than 5 minutes? Do you need more?

Mr. BYRD. It is fine with me if the Senator closes. The Senator wants 5 minutes over there. How much time does the Senator need?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, why do we want to vote down cloture? There are other appropriations bills coming to the floor. I am supporting the Senator's amendment. I never said a word against his amendment. I would be very supportive of it. I am not filibustering it, and I haven't filibustered anything else. I haven't filibustered the homeland security bill, either. I have heard some intimations this afternoon that I have filibustered. My Lord, some people around here wouldn't recognize a filibuster if they met it on the way home. I know what a filibuster is. But I am not against this amendment. Why would we want to vote against this cloture?

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there are other appropriations bills coming. Why not vote for this bill and do some of the good things that are being done with this bill, and the Senator can come back another day with his amendment? I am not opposed to his amendment. Why do we want to penalize other parts of the country and other Senators for good things that are in the bill because some Senators don't want to vote for cloture on this? This is an appropriations bill. Those advocating voting against cloture, in many instances, are Senators who are on the Appropriations Committee. Why? We need to get on with this. Let's vote cloture on this and the Senator will have another day, another opportunity on another appropriations bill. I am for his amendment. I think he has made a good statement in support of it. I cannot understand why we want to cut off our nose to spite our face on this bill.

Mr. BYRD. If they intend to bring it up later, why not vote for cloture here? Senators can always bring up something later.

Mr. BYRD. Of course it is, but if you cannot get it on one bill, you try on another.

Mr. BYRD. I have not opposed that. I tried to be very understanding with the Senator. We cannot have everything the way we want it. I have lost a few amendments in my time that were of interest to my part of the country, too.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I believe we have until 12:30 overall.

Mr. BYRD. How much time does the Senator from New Mexico want for his speech?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator. He wants 3 minutes for a statement. So I yield 3 minutes to him. I do not know why I am accommodating all these Senators like this, but I yield 3 minutes. I yield to him without losing my right to the floor for a statement only for not to exceed 3 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, over the course of the last several months, the Senate Appropriations Committee has endeavored to craft 13--13-- bipartisan, responsible pieces of legislation which fund every aspect of the Federal Government. The Appropriations Committee accomplished its goal. Each bill was adopted by the committee without a single dissenting vote--not one. This is the largest committee of any committee in the Senate. It is made up of 29 members--15 Democrats and 14 Republicans. So each bill was adopted by the committee without a single dissenting vote: 13 bills, not a single nay vote. That is true bipartisan cooperation. In fact, if one adds up the rollcall votes for the 13 bills, one would have a tally of 377 aye votes to zero nay votes. That is a record for which committee members should be proud. As all Senators are aware, the appropriations bills are stuck. They are stuck; the ox is in the ditch. The House Appropriations Committee has not acted on five appropriations bills, and the full House has yet to pass eight of the bills, leaving the next fiscal year in a dangerous position of starting without Congress having completed action on the funding legislation. Why are we in this predicament? While it would be easy to point the finger at the House of Representatives, the blame basically, truly belongs down the avenue--the other end of the avenue. The White House's Office of Management and Budget remains wedded to an arbitrary budget figure that undercuts the Congress' ability to complete its work in a responsible fashion. The Senate has passed appropriations bills that total $768 billion. Every Senator on the Appropriations Committee voted for that funding level. Every Senator on that committee voted for that funding level of $768 billion. Every Senator on the Appropriations Committee, Democrat and Republican, recognizes that level of $768 billion is a responsible level that provides for the largest Defense spending bill ever, that provides for a significant increase in homeland security funding, and that accommodates just enough to cover the cost of inflation for domestic priorities--priorities such as veterans health care, education. These are not boondoggle bills. These are responsible pieces of legislation. The House appropriators would be able to complete work on their bills if they were able to utilize the same overall figure. I want to say the fault is not with the House Appropriations Committee chairman. That committee would be able to finish its job. But the White House has insisted that the House allocate no more than $759 billion. So the House is stuck $9 billion below the Senate and weeks behind the calendar for completing its work. The House needs to get its work done, but more importantly, the administration needs to provide some flexibility to help us to finish these bills. We do not need political games. We need to complete action on 13 individual appropriations bills. I know; I worked closely with the chairman on the other side, Chairman Young, and with the ranking member on the Democrat side, Dave Obey. I worked closely with them. Their heart is in the right place. They know the Senate and the House ought to go to the higher, top line figure, $768 billion. But it is the administration that has its feet in concrete and its head in the sand. No, it wants to stay right on the $759 billion. That is why these appropriations bills are stuck. Just yesterday--listen to this--in an article in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Lawrence Lindsey, head of the White House's National Economic Council, projected that the military costs for this so-called war in Iraq will be $100 billion to $200 billion. They were talking about billions of dollars this year alone. I will say that again: Just yesterday, in an article in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Lawrence Lindsey, head of the White House National Economic Council, projected that the military costs for this so-called war in Iraq will be $100 billion to $200 billion this year alone. Now, I would consider $100 billion to be quite substantial. That is a lot of money, $100 billion. But Mr. Lindsey says it may go from $100 billion to $200 billion this year alone. I consider $100 billion to be quite a substantial figure, and I would consider $200 billion to be doubly substantial. Mr. Lindsey, when asked about that level, said: That's nothing. That's nothing--$100 billion to $200 billion, that's nothing? If $100 billion is nothing, Mr. Lindsey, what is $9 billion? How can $100 billion be nothing if the White House is willing to put the entire Government on autopilot over $9 billion? That is why we are not getting the appropriations bills done. The administration, through its Office of Management and Budget, says no more than $759 billion, because he has the authority of the President behind him. I have heard some strange economic plans in my day, but this one takes the cake. How can $100 billion be nothing, as Mr. Lindsey is quoted as saying, if the White House is willing to put the entire Government on autopilot over $9 billion? The growth of the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bills is not for the domestic program. The additional $9 billion in the Senate bills will fund the President's requested increases in the Department of Defense and homeland security. For the rest of the Government, that $9 billion is the difference between a hard freeze and a 3-percent adjustment for inflation. But those facts do not seem to matter. They do not seem to matter to this administration. In times such as these, the administration should be working with Congress to complete action on these appropriations bills, not attempting to hamstring Congress at every turn. Obviously, the Office of Management and Budget has adopted a strategy that places the administration's political goals and rhetoric above the needs of the Nation. The political goals come first, apparently, with this administration. What a shame. What a shame. The Office of Management and Budget has signaled that this year politics wins out over principle, rhetoric wins out over reality. So much for the new tone the President was going to bring to Washington. All this administration wants to do, apparently, is to play the same old games. The administration seems to believe that the Federal Government is nothing more than a Monopoly board. The President is living on Park Place, but the rest of the country is relegated to Mediterranean Avenue. The administration has asserted that $768 billion is excessive spending for the coming fiscal year, and yet the significant increases within that total are to fund the President's proposal to significantly increase defense spending and homeland security funding. I am not against doing whatever is needed to meet the Nation's requirements for defense, and the same is true with respect to homeland security. But the Nation should not be forced to cut budgets on health care, on education, on veterans programs, and other priorities here at home just to meet some political goal of the administration. The clock is ticking. We do not have time to play these political games. There is more at stake than a simple roll of the dice. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article from the Wall Street Journal published on Monday, September 16, 2002. The title of the article is: ``Bush Economic Aide Says Costs of Iraq War May Top $100 Billion.''

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the distinguished Democratic whip. Mr. President, I want to be sure that Senators understand the parliamentary situation in the Senate at this point. Last Thursday, the Senate voted on a motion to table the Thompson amendment to strike Titles II and III of the Lieberman substitute. Title II would establish a new National Office for Combating Terrorism within the Executive Office of the President whose Director would be confirmed by the Senate and made accountable to the Congress. That is incredibly important. The National Office for Combating Terrorism was viewed by our good colleague, Senator Lieberman as a central part of his homeland security bill. Title II was carried over from his original bill that was introduced last May, before the White House endorsed the idea of creating a new Department of Homeland Security. But the motion to table the Thompson amendment to strike Title II failed by a vote of 41-55 last Thursday. Senator Lieberman conceded the victory to Senator Thompson, and urged the Senate to accept the ``the next best idea.'' Senator Lieberman offered a scaled down version of Titles II and III as a second degree amendment to the Thompson amendment. It was at that point that I gained the floor and have held it until today. So I find myself in a position that I had not intended--and not an easy position. I have often felt, in recent days, as if this 84-year- old man--soon to be 85; within a few days--is the only thing standing between a White House hungry for power and the safeguards in the Constitution. That is not bragging, that is lamenting. This is not the way it ought to be. This will not go down as one of the Senate's shining moments. Historians will not look back at this debate and say that we fulfilled the role that was envisioned by the Framers. This Senate should have the wisdom to stand for this institution and the Constitution. It is not our duty to protect the White House. It is our duty to protect the people--those people out there looking through their electronic lenses, the people who come here from day to day, these silent individuals who sit up here in the galleries. They do not have anything to say. They are not allowed to speak under the Senate rules, but they sit and watch us. They are looking over our shoulders, as it were, and they expect us to speak for them. They will help to ensure that the interests and the rights of the American people are protected. That is what these people want. They want us to assure that their interests--the people's interests--and the rights of the American people are protected. I have been joined by a few voices on this floor in recent days, and I thank them. I feel that at least some Members are beginning to view this legislation as doing much more than merely setting up a new Department of Homeland Security. I have also heard from citizens across the country who have urged me never to give up. Well, I can assure them that as long as I am privileged to serve in this body I will never give up defending the Constitution. I heard Condoleezza Rice last Sunday, and I heard Dr. Rice the Sunday before. I heard Secretary of State Powell last Sunday on television, and I heard him the Sunday before. I have listened to Secretary Rumsfeld, and I have listened to Vice President Cheney on television. I have listened to various and sundry Senators on television. I have listened to various and sundry other spokespersons on television. I read the op-ed piece of former Secretary of State Shultz in the newspaper Sunday a week ago. I read the op-ed piece of former Secretary of State James Baker in the paper this past Sunday. And I hear many persons in the media--not everybody but some in the media--who seem to be intent upon galvanizing this and making this country ready for war. Not one of these people have I heard--maybe I missed it--refer to the Constitution. I take an oath, and so does every other Senator, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Nobody says anything about the Constitution in this debate that is raging over the country. There is a great fervor, and there is a great wave of opinion being created. And some in the media are doing it, or helping to create it. They have their minds made up. We are off to war. I can hear the bugles, and I can see the flag. I can see the sunlight tinting on the bugles as they pass, and the flag I see going already. I can hear the guns. There is a great fervor here, and I hear the war drums being beaten. It is as though we have our minds made up. It is as though the President is already ready to go. And there is a developing hysteria in this country saying: Let us go to war. We have our minds made up. Nobody stands up against that. But the Constitution is a barrier-- this Constitution which I hold in my hand. This Constitution says Congress shall have the power to declare war. It doesn't say the President shall have power to declare war. It doesn't say the Secretary of State shall have power to declare war. Congress shall have power to declare war. But who is bothering to mention Congress? Who is bothering to mention the Constitution? It has become irrelevant, as far as some of the commentators and columnists and editorial writers are concerned, it seems to me. That is my impression. The Constitution has become just an old piece of paper. It was great 215 years ago but not now. Events have overtaken the Constitution. Nobody mentions it. I haven't heard Dr. Condoleezza Rice mention it on her television appearances. I haven't heard the Secretary of State mention the Constitution. I haven't heard the Secretary of Defense mention the Constitution. I haven't heard the Vice President of the United States say a word about the Constitution when he discusses the business of going to war. Has it become irrelevant? Are we to sit supinely by and be swept up in this national fervor that is being developed, that is being created to stampede this country into war? Are we to sit silently by? Well, I want to assure the people that as long as I am privileged to serve in this body I will never give up defending the Constitution. And the Constitution is front and center to this business that we are discussing--the issue of war and peace. The Constitution is front and center. Why, there are some who will get on the national television programs--they do not invite me; I don't expect them to mention the Constitution. Why is it? Why is that? Here is the Vice President, the President of this body right here under the Constitution, who can't address the Senate except by unanimous consent, but when he is on national television on these programs, why doesn't he mention the Constitution? Is this Constitution irrelevant? They take for granted, I suppose, that the United Nations is the chief authorizer of America marching off to war. I am for what the President did the other day. He went to the United Nations. He has pointed the finger, as it were, at the United Nations, and said the United Nations has been recreant in its duty and recreant in its responsibility to enforce its resolutions. I think he laid down an excellent case in making that point. But we also have a duty here. We have a duty to uphold this Constitution and what it says about declaration of war and what it says about Congress. Why, it is as though the Constitution is something that went away with the winds of yesterday--gone. I can assure the people I will never give up defending this Constitution. It is my sworn duty. At some point, however, I will have to relinquish the floor. And when I do, the Lieberman amendment presumably will be withdrawn and the Senate will vote on the Thompson amendment. That amendment, I presume, would pass, and titles II and III of the Lieberman substitute will be stricken from the bill. Senator Lieberman may be right that we don't have the votes to defeat the Thompson amendment. But what disturbs me most of all is that such an important element of the Lieberman substitute could be stricken from the bill so easily. I am talking about the need to confirm the Director of the National Office for Combating Terrorism. So I just refer to that title as the Director. Now, I don't think we should accept that verdict so easily. It is unbelievable to me that people are not fighting harder for these proposals, not only in title II and title III, but throughout the entire bill. The issues raised by this legislation are too important to languish without more debate in the Senate. I know I am not the only Senator who is concerned about this bill, but I have not heard enough voices speaking out on these important matters. There are many, many unanswered questions which Senators need to focus on and explore. Of course, I can't fight this battle alone. Meanwhile, the President and the House Republican leadership are already turning up the heat on the Senate to pass this bill quickly. The President even suggests that delaying this bill will endanger the lives of the American people. That is nice rhetoric, Mr. President, but I doubt whether anyone believes that argument. The people are not endangered by our thorough consideration of this legislation. The mistakes we avoid now are just as important as getting the Department in place quickly. What is not done well, generally, must be done over, and unintended consequences can take years to correct. Nevertheless, pressures are building to expedite consideration of this bill. But in taking the floor, I hope to draw attention not only to the fallibility of passing this bill without a confirmable White House Homeland Security Director, but to other portions of this bill that should make Senators question the rush to enact this legislation so quickly. My hope is that Senators will consider the gravity of this legislation before they simply jump on board somehow. This homeland security legislation will have important consequences not only for the lives of all Americans, but for the American way of life as well. Mr. President, the security of the American people, on American soil, is, and has always been, our Government's most solemn responsibility. September 11 added a new dimension and urgency to that duty. The bill before the Senate seeks to enhance our Government's ability to protect the American people from the devastation of another terrorist attack by creating a new Department of Homeland Security. I have been for that. I was for that before President Bush was for it. That is a very ambitious goal. It is a worthy and honorable goal born of commendable intentions. But if we do not move with great caution--if we do not slow down just a little bit--move with great caution--and deliberation in our work, we will risk undermining the very purpose to which we are dedicated. My concerns about the proposed legislation are many. They are legion. While we can all embrace the concept of a new Department of Homeland Security, there are many, many pitfalls ahead for such an endeavor in the complicated new atmosphere of what has been called a ``war'' on terrorism. I have made several comments about the threat that this new Department poses to the civil liberties--hear me now--to the civil liberties of the American people. And that is not just hyperbole. Twenty-six leaders of conservative organizations across this country released a statement this month urging the Senate to exercise ``restraint, caution, and deeper scrutiny before hastily granting unnecessary powers to a homeland security bureaucracy.'' So, you see, that was not just Robert Byrd talking. That was not just an 84-year-old man, soon to be 85, talking. Let me say that again. Twenty-six leaders of conservative--get that-- conservative organizations across America released a statement this month urging the Senate to exercise--and I quote-- ``restraint, caution, and deeper scrutiny before hastily granting unnecessary powers to a homeland security bureaucracy.'' They wrote that: [T]he popular enthusiasm for such a centralization and bureaucratization in the name of homeland security may prove unwise. Proposed legislation not only increases the growth of the federal bureaucracy but establishes an infrastructure, legal and institutional, which, if abused, could lead to serious restrictions on the personal freedoms and civil liberties of all Americans. In case there are any latecomers to hearing this Senate, just now, I am talking about 26 leaders of conservative organizations across America who released a statement this month urging the Senate to slow down. They wrote--and I quote again: [T]he popular enthusiasm for such a centralization and bureaucratization in the name of homeland security may prove unwise. Proposed legislation not only increases the growth of the federal bureaucracy but establishes an infrastructure, legal and institutional, which, if abused, could lead to serious restrictions on the personal freedoms and civil liberties of all Americans. ``All Americans.'' September 11 was a shock to this Nation, and the fear, anger, and alarm it engendered have not, as yet, vanished. My concern is that in our zeal to see to it that terrorists never again defile our homeland, we will unwittingly cede some of our precious freedoms and blur the constitutional safeguards that have been the basis for our liberties and the check against an overreaching executive for 215 years, or thereabouts. Let me make it clear that I am not accusing anyone of deliberately trying to exploit our national tragedy. Rather, I believe that in our shock and revulsion, our collective determination to prevent further horrific attacks may change our Nation in fundamental ways that will eventually surprise and dismay all of us. How terribly ironic it would be if it were our response to the treachery of al-Qaida which dealt our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms the most devastating blow of them all. I believe that all of those in Government, those of us in Government who are challenged with confronting the horrible reality of what happened on September 11, have not, even yet, come to grips with certain fundamental realities. We must all begin to face certain truths. Terrorism is a worldwide force, and our ability to prevent it at home or contain it abroad is limited--is limited--at best. An enemy in the shadows, living among us and using our own openness and freedoms to attack our infrastructure, and to cripple and kill our citizens, is unlike any enemy we have ever before known. No Government Department can ever guarantee complete safety from this kind of threat in a world increasingly connected by trade, travel, electronic communication, migrating populations and open borders. But, we can do our best to anticipate vulnerabilities, protect critical infrastructure, and respond to possible devastation or deliberately spread disease. Yet, we can never be perfectly safe from the scourge of a terrorist attack. That is reality. And handing over our precious liberties and hard-won principles on such topics as worker rights, openness in government, the right to privacy and civil liberties--that is what is involved here--will not change that unfortunate and troubling reality. Such a course, blindly followed in the name of fighting terrorism, would be disastrous. Hear me. It is understandable that this administration, or any administration so consumed with the need to prevent another such horrific attack, might become so zealous and so focused on that mission that important freedoms could be trampled or relegated to a secondary position in our national life. If we are not vigilant, our country could be fundamentally changed before we realize it, in ways which we would all come to deeply regret. Let me illustrate what I mean. Recent headlines have provided examples of the administration's strong penchant for secrecy, and its refusal to be confined by the law and the Constitution in its attempts to shield its actions from public scrutiny. Last month, a Federal appeals court in Cincinnati issued a direct rebuke of attempts by the Administration to circumvent the Constitution--there is that magic word--by conducting deportation hearings in secret, whenever the government asserts that the object of the hearings might be linked to terrorism. Writing for the three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Damon J. Keith wrote, ``A government operating in the shadow of secrecy stands in complete opposition to the society envisioned by the framers of our Constitution.'' The Justice Department has already conducted hundreds of these hearings out of sight of the press and the public. In doing so, the administration has been able to decide the fate of each of these individuals without recrimination. It may be that all of these hearings were conducted properly and fairly, but there is just no way for us to know. Like so many other actions that this administration has taken on behalf of our safety, we have no way of knowing whether what they have done was the right thing to do. Nobody in this administration or anywhere else is all wise. We have no way of knowing whether the steps they have taken have really helped to secure our safety. And we have no way of knowing whether the actions they took may have threatened our own liberties. The administration argued that secrecy is necessary for these hearings because subjecting them to public scrutiny would compromise its fight against terrorism. The court's concurring opinion addressed the merits of the government's position, but it pointed out that a reasonable solution to the administration's concerns could be achieved by requiring the Government to demonstrate the need for secrecy in each hearing on a case-by-case basis. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals saw the Government's argument for what it is; namely, a danger to our liberty. The court took the clear- headed, clear-eyed position that excessive secrecy in matters such as these compromises the very principles of free and open government that the fight against terror is meant to protect. Even with the best of intentions to justify the Government's actions, our freedoms are easily trampled when officials are allowed to exercise the power of the Government without exposing their actions to the light of day. As Judge Keith wrote, ``Democracies die behind closed doors.'' We have also seen evidence in the news of what the executive branch is capable of when it is allowed to operate behind closed doors. On August 23, just last month, the front page of the Washington Post brought news of serious abuses of the laws that allow the Justice Department to conduct certain law enforcement activities in secret. Thank providence, thank heaven for a free press. That is what we want to keep. That is what we want to maintain--a free press. The Washington Post article revealed that on May 17, a secret court that was created to oversee the Government's foreign intelligence activities rejected new rules proposed by the Department of Justice that would have expanded the ability of Federal investigators and prosecutors to operate in secret. There you have it again--secret. The Attorney General, John Ashcroft, wanted to tear down the walls between intelligence officials and law enforcement officials in the Department of Justice, allowing broad sharing of secret intelligence information among offices throughout the Department. Mr. Ashcroft wanted to tear down these walls for a reason. The walls make it harder for his Department to circumvent the constitutional obstacles faced by his investigators in trying to hunt down terrorists. And like others in this administration, Mr. Ashcroft has little patience or concern for the Constitution now that he is a general in the President's ``war on terror.'' I voted for Mr. Ashcroft. I am not one of those who opposed his nomination. I was one of the few on this side of the aisle who voted for Mr. Ashcroft's nomination. I have to say, I am disappointed. But Mr. Ashcroft is not alone. Take a look at this administration. Haven't you heard of the shadow government? That came to light a while back. All of a sudden, like the prophet's gourd, it just grew up overnight. Here is this shadow government. I had not been told about it. After all, I am chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate. I am not the top Democrat in the Senate, but I am the senior Democrat in the Senate. I hadn't been told anything about it. I am the President pro tempore of the Senate; in other words, the President, for the time being. If the Vice President is not in the chair, I am the President of the Senate. I hadn't been told anything about a shadow government. Of course, I said time and time again how this great idea about a Homeland Security Department, at least the administration's great plans, suddenly sprang into existence, like Aphrodite, who sprang from the ocean foam, or like Minerva, who sprang from the forehead of Jove fully armed and fully clothed. All of this was a secret. We didn't know anything about this thing hatched out of the bosom of the White House--this great plan hatched out by four individuals in the bowels of the White House. So this White House, this administration, has a penchant for secrecy. I am not going to point the finger just at Mr. Ashcroft. I voted for him. On this side of the aisle, I voted for him. He used to serve in this body. But Mr. Ashcroft wanted to tear down these walls for a reason. I say again, the walls make it harder, as all walls do, to get wherever you are going. The walls make it harder for his Department, Mr. Ashcroft's Department, to circumvent, get around, the constitutional obstacles faced by his investigators in trying to hunt down terrorists. He and others in this administration apparently have little patience and concern for the Constitution--here it is--now that he is a general in the President's war on terror. Today is September 17, 2002, in the year of Our Lord; this is the day, 215 years ago, when our forefathers signed their names, the framers of the Constitution signed their names on the Constitution. They had completed their work, which had begun back in May 1787, and they signed their names on this Constitution. This is the day. I will have more to say about that shortly. But this secret court, which was created by Congress under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, recognized the danger of tearing down these protective walls. The act made it easier for Federal investigators to obtain evidence through wiretaps or physical searches when the evidence will be used for foreign intelligence purposes. Traditional criminal investigations require a higher standard for search warrants and wiretaps, to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens. By trying to tear down the wall between the two, the Attorney General was hoping to lower the bar for obtaining evidence for criminal investigations by expanding access to secret procedures used in foreign intelligence. The wall between law enforcement and intelligence has always allowed for cooperation in specific instances. In fact, this is the first time in the history of this secret court that an administration's request has been rejected. But this cooperation has previously been allowed to prosecute people such as CIA mole Aldrich Ames, whose crime was inextricably linked to foreign intelligence. If this wall had fallen, the Justice Department would be allowed to secretly investigate almost anyone who made an international phone call. It is well to remember that the Patriot Act, passed in the aftermath of September 11, already lowered the bar for bypassing due process, privacy, and individual freedom. The Justice Department argues that the Patriot Act also authorizes the elimination of the wall between intelligence and law enforcement. Couple this momentum with a new Department primed to root out terrorism at home and abroad and a powerful new Secretary of Homeland Security with intelligence powers that cut across traditional lines of authority, and one can easily see the possibility for abuse and for excess. That is why I am standing on the floor--trying to draw the attention of the public, trying to capture the attention of my colleagues, and trying to capture the media's attention. This is what I am talking about. In reacting to the court's ruling, the Justice Department said: We believe that the court's action unnecessarily narrowed the Patriot Act and limited our ability to fully utilize the authority Congress gave us. Get that. It is the phrase ``fully utilize'' that gives me some special pause. Powers granted to this administration must continue to be checked. Oh, I tell you, they need to be checked. The need for checks on administrative powers is not just hypothetical, it is not just constitutional; I wish more would pay attention to that aspect of it. It has been well documented by recent Executive actions. The most disturbing part of the secret court opinion is the revelation that the Justice Department has already been abusing this secret process, including 75 specific instances cited by the court in which FBI, or Justice officials, provided false statements in their applications for wiretaps and search orders, including one application signed by then-FBI Director Louis B. Freeh. The court cited these examples as evidence of the need to keep a close eye on the Department's activities in order to prevent an environment in which cooperation becomes subordinated to the law enforcement agenda of the Attorney General. While some of the abuses identified by the court occurred during the administration of former President Clinton, rather than President Bush, the need for oversight applies to every administration. My concerns are not just based on who may be in the White House at a particular moment. My concerns are based in the Constitution. These problems transcend administrations. Administrations may come and go, but the Constitution, like Tennyson's brook, goes on and on forever. The war on terrorism must not be used by the executive branch--any executive branch. Mr. Bush certainly won't be in office forever. So one should look even beyond this administration, whatever the next administration will be. The war on terrorism must not be used by the executive branch as an excuse to ignore constitutional liberties behind closed doors and to destroy the delicate checks and balances that have made this Nation a great beacon for freedom to the world. Congress is the leveler when it comes to precipitous actions. The Senate, in particular, is the place intended by the Framers for cooling off. A calm oasis where reason and cooler heads prevail against the heat of passion has always been found on the floor of the United States Senate, and I hope that we in this Chamber will again step up to that traditional calling as we consider this matter in these extraordinary times. In an election year, all politicians like to claim we have an answer for even the Nation's most intractable problems, but in this case we underestimate the intelligence of the American people if we believe that merely offering them a new Department of Homeland Security will serve as currency to buy our way out of our continuing responsibilities under the Constitution. The people know that such a Department is no panacea for protection of our homeland. They will never forgive us if we are lax in our duty to safeguard traditional freedoms and American values based on the Constitution as we rush to fashion a new Department, even though that Department is intended to protect the American people from the insidious danger of a virulent attack on our homeland. In the name of homeland security, Congress must not be persuaded to grant broad authorities to the administration that, given more careful thought, we would not grant. The House has already passed legislation to grant the President the authority to waive worker protections for Federal employees, to place the new Department's inspector general under the thumb of the Homeland Security Secretary, to exempt the new Department from public disclosure laws, and to chip away at congressional control of the power of the purse. Close examination of the President's plan shows that the administration is seeking more new powers which, unchecked, might be used to compromise the private lives of the American public. Congress must never act so recklessly as to grant such broad statutory powers to any President, even in the quest for something so vital as protection of our own land. So vital, the war on terror. We must exercise great caution. We must operate with the clear knowledge that once such powers are granted, they will reside in the White House with future Presidents--Republican and Democrat--and they will not be easily retrieved. So once such powers are granted, they will not be easily retrieved. They will reside in the White House. And everyone who knows anything about the Constitution and about our experience in the political arena, anybody who knows anything about that, knows that no future President will likely return those powers, likely give up those powers, once they have been granted, and a Presidential veto in the future will be very difficult to overcome, as such a veto is usually difficult to overcome. Once the powers go down that avenue to the other end, they are gone for a long time, and the only way they can be retrieved is by overriding a Presidential veto. And, of course, the Senators and everyone know that will require a two-thirds vote. It will not make a difference whether the President is Democrat, Republican, or Independent; He will want to keep those powers. So be careful about granting them now. Both the House-passed bill and the Lieberman bill substitute broad new authority to the administration to create this new Department, but neither bill ensures that Congress remain involved. Neither the House bill nor the Lieberman bill ensure that Congress remain involved throughout the implementation of the legislation. Senator Lieberman's bill takes steps to ensure that Congress is informed as the Department assumes its duties, but under his bill this information comes to us only after the fact. It is not enough just to be told how the administration intends to use these statutory powers. Congress needs to retain some prerogatives so Congress can temper and shape the administration's exercise of these new authorities and so Congress can temper and shape the new Department's exercise of the new authority. So Congress has the responsibility to make sure we do not grant broad statutory powers to the President and then just simply walk away from the new Department, trusting that the administration will exercise restraint. Congress must remain involved to ensure that the orderly implementation of the Department does not flounder and that important worker rights and civil liberties do not fall into the breach. Government reorganization is nothing novel. We have had Government reorganization before. And we have from time to time found new agencies created in the spotlight of political pressure and then left to languish and go awry in the twilight of mundane and practical purpose. This could be a mistake. This administration, since the September 11 attacks, has announced at least three major governmental reorganizations prior to the President's proposal to create a new Homeland Security Department. Last December, in response to numerous media reports criticizing the Nation's porous borders, the administration proposed the consolidation of the Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service within the Justice Department. Last March, following the mailing of two student visas by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to two of the September 11 hijackers 6 months after they crashed planes into the World Trade Center Towers, the administration announced the INS would be reorganized, split into a services bureau on the one hand and a separate enforcement bureau on the other. Last May, following reports about intelligence failures by the FBI, the administration announced a reorganization of the FBI. These reorganizations have either produced very little or they have been replaced by subsequent additional reorganization proposals. It is as if we are spinning around in circles with little left to show for all of the energy expended but dizziness. To avoid a similar fate to this new Department, I have an amendment to the Lieberman substitute that would ensure that the Congress continues to play a role. The Byrd amendment would create the superstructure of the new Department as outlined in the Lieberman bill, but would require Congress to pass separate, more detailed legislation to transfer the agencies, functions, and employees to it. The Byrd amendment would not change the intent of the Lieberman bill. Let me say this, Senator Lieberman is near the floor. I don't necessarily have to keep the floor for the next hour. I can under the order that had been entered. I get first recognition. But there is still an hour in this 2-hour period before the Senate goes back to the Interior appropriations bill. I welcome Mr. Lieberman's questions. I am happy to discuss my amendment with him if he so desires before I give up the floor. My amendment would immediately create a new Homeland Security Department. There it is. My amendment would create immediately a new Homeland Security Department. My amendment would immediately establish the superstructure of the six directorates outlined by the Governmental Affairs Committee. The Byrd amendment is not designed as an alternative to the Lieberman bill. I refer to it as the Lieberman bill. It is a bill that has been reported by the committee which Senator Lieberman so ably chairs. So I refer to the bill as ``the Lieberman bill.'' Its purpose is to strengthen. The purpose of my amendment is to strengthen the Lieberman bill. Its purpose is to ensure a strong Department capable of protecting our people. But its enactment would also ensure that the guiding hand of Congress would be there to help steer the course and stay the course. What is more, any legislation submitted pursuant to this act would be referred to the Governmental Affairs Committee in the Senate so that my amendment, the Byrd amendment, would not deprive Senator Lieberman or his committee of their jurisdiction or their expertise as we go about implementing this new Department which will have been created by the Lieberman bill. And, as I say, my amendment also creates that Department. My amendment allows the Department of Homeland Security to be established just as Senator Lieberman envisioned. But the Byrd amendment would give Congress additional opportunities to sift through details concerning worker rights, civil liberties, secrecy, and various duties and functions. Equally important, it would ensure that the agencies and the offices to be transferred into the Department can continue to perform their important work of protecting the homeland while the groundwork is being laid for their move to the new Department. Just recently we have all noted in the media that--I believe six persons were arrested in New York, in Buffalo, NY. Six persons were arrested. We didn't have any new Department of Homeland Security. There is no Department of Homeland Security that has been established. Yet the work of securing our homeland goes forward by the persons who man-- man or woman, I use the word ``man'' to mean both women and men--the persons who are on the borders, who are guarding the ports of entry, who are looking at the huge containers that come into our ports, the persons who--right today and last night at midnight and all through the hours of this day, yesterday, the day before, and tomorrow--will continue to do their work even though there is no Department of Homeland Security. The FBI was on the job. The FBI has been on the job. And so the FBI brought about the arrest of these six persons, and they are being held. So I say to the President and to anyone else: Nobody is holding up the work of proceeding with the security of our country. The people who will secure this Nation under a Homeland Security Department, if and when one is established, are the same people who are right now, right this day, securing the homeland. These people have been on the job last night, 6 months ago, and they continue to do this work. They have expertise. They have experience. They are trained, and so on. So nobody is holding up the security of the country. Nobody is holding that up. That is going forward, as was seen when the FBI arrested the six persons. So this is vital. Ongoing reorganizations can foster chaos and destroy worker morale. Orderliness and careful thought while we transition can avoid overlooked vulnerabilities and missed nuances which could signal another disaster. With the Byrd amendment, the Lieberman bill would transfer agencies and functions to the Department, one and two directorates at a time, beginning on February 3 of next year. This would then give Congress the opportunity to gauge and to monitor how the new Department is dealing with transition and what additional changes might be necessary. It would provide a means to quickly address the problems that will undoubtedly arise in the early phases of the Department's implementation and to guard against mistakes and missteps. The Byrd amendment would not delay the implementation of the new Department one whit. It would actually expedite the implementation of the new Department by providing Congress with additional means to solve the quandaries that traditionally plague and delay and disrupt massive reorganizations. Here we are talking about 170,000 employees. We are talking about 28 agencies and offices--some have said 30. So this is no minor movement. This is a major reorganization. Moreover, the Congress could act to transfer agencies before the end of next year, roughly the same time period outlined by the Lieberman plan. When I say the Lieberman plan, I am talking about the bill that was adopted by the committee, which Mr. Lieberman ably chaired. And that is the same time period outlined by the House bill. So who is holding up anything? Why shouldn't we stop, look, and listen here and do this thing in an orderly way? Do it right. Not necessarily do it now, do it here, but do it right. The Lieberman plan provides the President with a 1-year transition period, beginning 30 days after the date of enactment, effectively allowing up to 13 months before any agencies are transferred. By then forcing the administration to come back to us--which the Byrd amendment would do--we can insist on knowing more about the plans of the administration with its penchant for secrecy--plans which are now only hazy outlines. So if Congress passes the Lieberman proposal or if Congress passes the House proposal, Congress will just be turning the thing over to the administration, lock, stock and barrel, and saying: Here it is, Mr. President. You take it. You have 13 months in which to do this, but it is all yours. Congress will just go off to the sidelines. Congress will have muzzled itself. Whereas in the Byrd plan, the Byrd plan would also transfer these agencies. It would create a Homeland Security Department, and it would provide for the transaction, the movement of these various agencies, their personnel and their assets, into the new Department over the same period, 13 months, but it would do it in an orderly process in an orderly way, phased in, with Congress staying front and center and continuing to conduct oversight in this massive reorganization. We must insist on assurances that in granting more powers to this administration and to future administrations to investigate terrorism, we are not also granting powers to jeopardize the rights, privacy, or privileges of law-abiding citizens. We must insist on assurances that the constitutional rights of Americans remain protected. We must insist that the constitutional control of the purse by the Congress is not compromised. We must insist on assurances that Government reorganization will not be used as a convenient device to dismantle time-honored worker protections. We must insist on the preservation of our Government's constitutional system of checks and balances and separation of powers. We have a responsibility to do our very best as a nation to get this thing right. If we are going to create a new Department, let's get it right. We have a responsibility to ourselves and to future generations to ensure that, in our zeal to build a fortress against terrorism, we are not dismantling the fortress of our organic law--our Constitution--our liberties, and our American way of life.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask the leader if he will add my name to that cloture motion.

Mr. BYRD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.