Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, by the authority of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 5157 just received from the House and at the desk.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the committee amendments be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, at the request of the distinguished majority leader and the assistant leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 528, S. 1777.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to en bloc, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 327, submitted earlier today by Senators Stabenow and Levin.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now go into a period for the transaction of routine morning business and that Senators may speak therein for not to exceed 3 minutes each.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. The Senator avoids the question he put to me. He is talking about an election that will come upon us in November--this coming November. I understand what he is saying. He is saying we ought to take action before the election. Then he says we ought to hear what the U.N. says. And I say, let's not be in all the hurry. We ought to hear what the U.N. says. Let's see what world opinion is. We ought not go into this alone. If this man is a threat to world peace, the United States should not have to go it alone. Perhaps he will have to be removed. But we have a little bit of time, surely. I say to the Senator, let's take the time. Let's debate the question. Let's debate it and reach a decision on the basis of what the Constitution tells us. Let me just continue. I didn't want the Senator to leave. I thought he was about to leave. Let me continue. He said, with whom does he consult? That is a good question. I have already responded. I also talked about Justinian. I talked about Ivan the Terrible. I talked about Peter the Great. Now, let's go to Stalin. With whom did he consult? With whom did Adolph Hitler talk? With whom did he consult? It was not a free and independent Senate. If they had a free and independent Senate that had control of the power and control of the purse strings, history might have been different. Hundreds of thousands of lives might have been saved. Mr. President, let us not act in haste. Let us forget about our politics. Let us not be for or against a resolution on the question of war or peace on the basis of what party we belong to. Let us put that question in a way that we will be with and in support of the Constitution.

Mr. BYRD. Cicero was asked what speech by Demosthenes he liked best; and he said, the longest. So it is all right. One can be long winded if he has something to say. And he may have to say it over and over and over in this situation. I say, yes, yes, in answer to the Senator, I am for a vote. But I have to see evidence that requires us to vote now or tomorrow. We have had this evidence all this while, at least a long while, 3 months or 4 months or 3 years. So why the sudden rush that we have to vote before the election? I think we should vote after the election so Senators will not be persuaded or moved one way or the other, because of an election, as to how they vote. They are voting to send that little lamb to the slaughter. Should we do that in a hurry? No. I say let's delay. I have said all I will say in answer to the distinguished Senator, unless he has another question.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will respond to the question that has been addressed to me, and it is a good question, a thoughtful question. May I just say I hope the Senator will join me in insisting that this Senate debate the homeland security legislation and not rush that legislation. That is a part of national defense as much as anything. It is the defense of our homeland. So I hope the Senator will be one of those who will join me in taking our time to thoughtfully debate a very serious matter, namely, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Now, more to the question as it was addressed to me, the answer is I support debate on the question as to whether or not the Congress should authorize the Commander in Chief to make war. I have asked my staff to consider language for such a question to be presented to the Senate. My staff has been working on such a matter. I hear that Mr. Levin is going to hold hearings in the Armed Services Committee, on which the distinguished Senator from Alabama serves so well. It is good that Senator Levin is going to do that. It is good that the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, will hold hearings. The chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Graham, may hold hearings. So all these things are well and good. They are all necessary under the circumstances. We should understand what the witnesses say in those hearings. Our three chairmen should not just invite administration witnesses. Apparently they already have their minds made up. Invite them, but don't just not stop at that. Apparently they have their minds made up. I heard three or four of them on Sunday talk shows last Sunday. I already mentioned that. They are all from the same viewpoint, and not one mentioned the Constitution of the United States. Yes, I favor that the Congress vote, up or down. I have said that before today. I have said that many days. I think the Congress should vote up or down on the question. This is the question as to whether or not Congress will authorize and declare war, if it comes to that. This will be no minor skirmish. This will not be a little group out on a party and they happened to run into some other people, they got mixed up and got to fighting, and two or three were killed. This is not a minor skirmish. I said, yes, this is a solemn question because it does involve a dictator such as Saddam Hussein, one who has killed his own people, gassed his own people, one who has shown no compunction about using biological or chemical weapons. We know he has done that. We know he can do that. But the question is, what is it that makes it so urgent that all of a sudden here comes something like a cloud over the western hills and blows into the Capital City, here is a looming storm that just came up. Lord, this may be a torrent. It may flood ourselves. It may kill people. We have to do something about it right now. What can we do as mere mortals? It is not quite like that. I have already said the President has inherent power without asking anybody. If Congress is out of town, he does not have to ask Congress. If this country is attacked, he has the inherent power to repel the attacker. I don't argue about that. But that is not the situation. What is so new? We have known these things now for months or years. May I say to the distinguished Senator from Alabama, would the Senator show me the courtesy of just finishing? I know there may be some who think I am long winded.

Mr. BYRD. No, not yet. I will yield maybe later. I will be glad to yield--does the Senator have to leave the floor? I will yield right now. He is about to leave the floor in a huff, I believe. I hope he is not. Maybe I am misinterpreting him. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the distinguished Senator from Alabama for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama. I have long had as my friends Senators from Alabama. When I came to the Senate, there were Senators Sparkman and Lister Hill. There have been a succession of Senators from Alabama. Especially, I want to mention the late Senator James Allen from Alabama. I have had very good relations with the Senators from Alabama. I consider myself as being on the same footing, same level of good relations with the distinguished Senator from Alabama who has just addressed the Senate. I do want to comment briefly on two or three things that he said. He first indicated, when I yielded to him, that he and I had often agreed on matters and that there were times when we might disagree as to our interpretations of the Constitution. That can be very true. Today, I have been talking about a phrase which, when joined with the preceding language, amounts to a sentence, a clause: The Congress shall have power to declare war. There is no reason for anybody to misinterpret that. I hope the Senator from Alabama wouldn't misinterpret what is in plain view, written in plain English, and has been in that Constitution now for over 200 years. I hope there is no matter of misinterpreting that plainly spoken clause in the United States Constitution: The Congress shall have power to declare war. I hope we don't have to argue about how to interpret those plainly written, well-understood words from the English language that Congress shall have the power to declare war. That is what I have been talking about. The distinguished Senator went on to say, we need to be with the President of the United States; we need to support the President of the United States. I like to be with the President of the United States on most matters. And in the final analysis, I may be with the President on this one. But it is not a matter of being with the President or supporting the President. I maintain that we need to be with the Constitution of the United States. We need to support the Constitution of the United States. It is not damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead; it is not damn the Constitution, full speed ahead. I want to be with the Constitution. Count me on the side of the Constitution. I want to support the Constitution first, last, and all the time, I say to the Senator. And maybe I will be with the President in due time. But I am not one who says this is a matter that has to be hurried before the election. What is this? Is this the October surprise in August or in September? This is a matter of great moment. And hinging on the decisions of this Senate may be the lives of many citizens. In the second book of Samuel, I remember the story there which is told of a rich man and a poor man who lived in the same city. The rich man had huge herds of sheep, cattle, and lambs. The poor man had one little lamb. The poor man had one little ewe lamb. Everywhere that poor man went, that little lamb went. That little lamb was the sole possession the poor man had. When he ate, he fed that little lamb from his bowl, from his pot, or whatever it might have been. The poor man cared for that little lamb and it loved him. He shared his food and he shared his shelter with that little lamb. Presently, a traveler visited the rich man, and the rich man wanted to present a feast to the traveler. He wanted to show courtesy and all of the niceties of being a man of hospitable nature. He wanted to spread food before the stranger. Did he take from his lambs, his herds? He had huge herds. He had vast possessions. He had barns in which he stored the product of the fields. He had vast lands. He had servants. He was well off. He had many, many lambs. Did he take one of the lambs from his own herd? No. He took the one little lamb that the poor man had and served it up, may I say to the distinguished Senator from Alabama. He served that little lamb, the only lamb that the poor man had. He didn't ask for it. He just took it. He took that little lamb from the poor man and served it up to his guest. Now, why do I say this? Why do I refer to second Samuel today? There are many mothers in this land who won't get to vote on this matter. There are many mothers in this land who have but one little lamb. I know we have a volunteer military now, and those who volunteer understand what their responsibilities are. They know they may have to sacrifice their lives, and they volunteered to do it. Nevertheless, there are those in the service who are the little lambs of mothers who are at home at night thinking about their little lambs and praying for their little lambs. Now, here we are about to be faced with a proposition in which these representatives--these mothers of the sons and daughters who are in the services--will not be asked for their vote. There are those who apparently are under the impression that the Congress doesn't need to be asked for its vote--the Congress, the elected Representatives under this Constitution. Yet some have suggested that the President has the authority. He can go. Some say he is right and he should attack unilaterally. That is what we have been talking about in the last few weeks. People were under the impression that this might be a unilateral attack by the United States against a sovereign state that was not attacking the United States. Of course, we all agree about this imp who is head of that government. But that is a sovereign state. That state is not attacking us. I am not arguing that Iraq it is not a threat, but is it such a threat, is it so impending, is it so immediate that the Commander in Chief, who is the civil authority over the military in our system of government, can send men and women in the military to war, send them to give their lives, to shed their blood, without asking the Congress? Is he the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, of this decision? The President is the Commander in Chief. He is not a four-star general. Under our system, it is meant to be that way. He is not a four-star general. This is a republic, a constitutional republic, and we have a legislative branch and a judicial branch. These are separate branches. Are we, the Congress, going to stand by and say I am with my President, right or wrong? No, I don't subscribe to that. Every Senator in this body knows I have spoken out in opposition to Democratic Presidents--President Clinton being one. I am not speaking from the standpoint of a Democrat. I am speaking from the standpoint of a duly elected Representative of the American people who have sent me here to this body under a constitutional system that observes a separation of power. No, don't tell me you are either with the President or against the President. That is what I have just heard. I am with the Constitution. Mark me down for the Constitution. Now, I will have both ears open and hear the arguments that are made. I have already applauded the President for going to the United Nations. I think the U.N. has been derelict in its duty. It has stood by supinely while 16 of its resolutions have been ignored. I don't disagree with that; the President did the right thing in doing that. There should not have been all this talk in the newspaper, on the television, and on the radio, and through the media--the many men and women of the Government taking the attitude, apparently, that the President has the authority to go to war if he wants to; he has the authority. That is not so. We are not talking about a mere skirmish. We are not talking about a situation in which another country has attacked our country or launched an attack on our military forces. This is not a skirmish that we have looming out here. This is war. The weapons that may be unleashed in this war will not have been unleashed, perhaps, in previous wars. But we still have a Constitution. I don't care how many, or how loud they may talk or speak. I am going to be at least a single voice saying that we live, we work, we act by the Constitution of the United States when it comes to declaring war and making war. You can have a thousand voices, but they will not drown out mine. I am going to be heard, if God gives me the privilege of standing on this floor and speaking. I don't know how long God may give me that privilege. But as long as I can speak, I will. I am not the greatest defender of the Constitution that ever lived. I know a lot about American history, and I know a lot about the Daniel Websters who spoke in support of the Union that was created by this Constitution, which I hold in my hand. This is no Johnny-come-lately to this Senate. I have seen 300 Senators come and go except for one Senator. There have been others in this body who have defended this Constitution as valiantly as any could defend it. Don't say to me you are either with the President or you are not with the President. That is not the case. I am with the Constitution of the United States, and I am with the Commander in Chief of the United States when Congress declares war. I know there have only been five declarations of war. I know there have been seven other wars that have been carried on, not by declaration but by congressional statute. Congress authorized them. There have been many smaller wars, conflicts, military skirmishes, and so on. But this is a major question facing this country. It will not be a military skirmish if it happens, and many a mother will cry on her pillow because her lamb, perhaps her only lamb, will have his life taken. Mr. President, I say let's hear what the ordinary people--I want to use the word ``ordinary'' because that fits me exactly. I came from the other side of the tracks. I did not grow up in the boardrooms of this country. I was never on any corporate board. The only business I ever had was a small grocery store. My wife did most of the work in that little grocery store. She put me through college. So I am from the other side of the tracks. I have known times when I did not know what my next job would be. I had a family early. My wife and I have been married 65 years, 3 months and 15 days today. We were poor. When I was married I was making $70 a month, working 6 days a week, long hours a day, and for a while in that period walking 4 miles to work and 4 miles from work if I could not catch a ride on a milk truck or bread truck. I am from the other side of the street. I am not a pampered brat who never knew the need for a nickel, never knew the need for anything, had everything given to me. I do not find any fault with people who are born lucky. What I am saying is there are many more people like this man from the other side of the tracks in this country, and there are many more mothers from that side of the tracks than there are those who never knew what it was to have to wipe the sweat from their brow for their daily bread; never had to get their fingernails dirty; never had to wear tennis shoes in the snow. Those are the people who fight in wars. They are the people whose sons and daughters die in wars, but they are not the people who are at the high echelons of Government who do the voting. In this instance, yes, we are going to have a vote. You can bet on that. We will have one. I said all along we ought to vote. That is what I am saying today. Congress should vote. But I am not for an ``October surprise'' in August, and I am not for voting on this matter before the election. Look behind that drapery. Draw aside that veil. What do you see? It has to be voted on before the election? Forget it. If circumstances develop that truly can convince, can be persuasive beyond a semblance of doubt that Congress ought to act tomorrow or the day after tomorrow or next week, yes, but that convincing case has not been made. A convincing case was made to the United Nations yesterday with respect to the failures of the United Nations, the fact that that body has been recreant in carrying out their responsibilities, a very convincing case made by the President of the United States. But no convincing case has been made in the press or in this body that we must act to give the President authority to invade a sovereign nation now or before the election. That case has not been made. Make the case and make it here. And believe me, there will be plenty said on both sides. If our Nation is at war with another country, I will do everything I can to support that war. I helped to build the liberty ships and the victory ships in the shipyards of Baltimore and the shipyards of Tampa, FL during World War II. I was a first-class welder who helped to build ships to carry the food and commerce for the engine of war in World War II. I helped to build the ships to convey to the military in Europe, in northern Africa, in the Pacific. These ships carried the munitions of war. We helped to keep the food lines and the blood lines open with those ships. So there are many ways to serve. But believe you me, this Senator is not now or ever going to be stampeded into voting for or against this subject just to be with or without the President. I am with the Constitution. If that is the argument we are going to hear, it is not going to be a very persuasive argument. You are either going to be with this President or not with him. Who made this President? He is a very respectable individual who comes from a fine family. I served here with his father who became President. Who made him? How did he become President? Somebody had to cast votes to elect him President. How long will he be President? The Constitution made this President. The Constitution was here before this President or any other President. Who made the President? Who is going to be with the President? I will first be with the Constitution. I may be with the President later, but first is the Constitution. Don't come here saying we are either with or without the President. That is not the question. The question is: Are we with the Constitution? Are the people's representatives going to make a decision? When that time comes, then there might be some good arguments to go to war with Iraq, even to stand alone and go to war. Maybe arguments can be presented. There may be evidence by then. Who knows? I do not know, but we have to see it. The evidence is not there yet that we have to act so hastily, that we have to act before the election. What does the election have to do with it? What does the election have within itself to do with it? The election will go forward. What is to keep Congress from voting on this matter after the election? Why does it have to be before the election? Is that the ``October surprise'' in September or October, before November? Let's not be too hasty. That is what I have been saying about this legislation with reference to homeland security. Let's don't be too hasty. Let's do it right. Remember that mother's lamb. The distinguished Senator asked: With whom did Hussein talk? With whom did he consult? He may not have consulted anybody; that is too bad. Hussein should have had a free and independent Senate. Hussein should have had a Senate where voices could be heard, voices in opposition to Hussein, voices of caution, openly and freely where all the public could hear. Yes, Hussein should have had that. There was no Senate like this Senate in Hussein's government. I am talking about a free, separate branch, that is independent, where there is free, unlimited speech--except for unanimous consent or cloture--where there is a Senate that controls the purse strings. Yes, I say Hussein should have had that. He should have had a Senate like this Senate. It is not led around by any President's chain. No President chains this Senate. There are no chains on this Senate. It is a free and independent Senate. Yes, Hussein should have had a Senate such as this one, where debate would have been heard. But he does not have that. With whom did he consult? Certainly not an Iraqi Senate, like this one. The same could be said of Emperor Justinian who ruled in Constantinople, on the great golden horn. Justinian sent thousands of people to their deaths in the Nika rebellion. Justinian did not have a Senate. What about Ivan the Terrible, who had tens of thousands massacred? Ivan the Terrible did not have a Senate. There was no Senate in Muscovy. Peter the Great sent thousands of men to labor and to die in the swamps to build the city of Petrograd, Leningrad. But Peter the Great had no Senate to caution him, no Senate that controlled the purse strings. Yes, with whom did Hussein consult? That is a good question. But we know that Hussein had no Senate.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, inasmuch as I still have the floor and the distinguished Democratic whip has asked me to adjourn the Senate in his absence, I will yield to the Senator 1 additional minute. I have a few brief comments with regard to what the Senator has said. I will be glad to yield, if there is no other objection, to the Senator for an additional minute without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this is the Senator to whom the Senator from Alabama is addressing his remarks. This Senator will answer the Senator. Mr. President, since there is another Presiding Officer at the moment, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, who has been in his individual chair in the Chamber--he sits over here to my left--all afternoon during all of the time that this Senator has been talking about the homeland security matter. He is still here. I thank him. He has taken the chair to relieve Senator Wyden. I am glad of that. I am still not going to impose on the Senate. But I am going to hold the floor until the Senator from Alabama gets through with his statement. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that I may yield to the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, for not to exceed 15 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator may proceed on the statement only, that I may retain my rights to the floor, and that he may proceed for not to exceed 15 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Does he wish me to yield for a statement?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I have been a Member of this body 44 years. I don't think I have ever seen a time when I was pressed to complete my statement on the premise that there were no other Senators available to preside over this body and that the occupant of the chair would have to leave soon, thus forcing me to complete my statement before I intended to complete it. This comes down to a pretty serious juncture. I will not go any further than to say that in this body no Senator should be required to end his statement on the basis that after a certain hour there will be no further Senators available to preside. Now, Mr. President, that is pretty serious. I have been a Senator a long time, 44 years come next January 3. I have been a Member of the Congress for 50 years come next January 3. Never have I had it put to me that at a certain hour we will have no more Senators available to preside. Now, something is wrong with the Senate if it has come to that. Suppose I want to speak until 6 o'clock this evening. Suppose I want to deliver a speech that I consider very, very important. I am not here addressing a Mother's Day speech, making one of my holiday speeches. I am not here talking about Mother's Day or Christmas Day or Thanksgiving or Independence Day. I am addressing what I consider to be one of the most important questions to come before this Senate in my 44 years in this Senate. I am very well aware of the fact there needs to be a Senator in the chair as I speak. As President pro tempore of this body, I should know that. The office of President pro tempore is a constitutional office, unlike the office of, say, the majority leader, minority leader, majority whip, or minority whip. These are offices and officers who are voted on by this body and elected by this body. But I am President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate. I am the 86th President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate. The President pro tempore is the President of the Senate for a time being, temporarily, while the Vice President, who is the President of the Senate, is away, is not presiding, or is assuming the responsibilities of the Presidency in the event, very unfortunate event that that should happen. The President pro tempore, he is the first constitutional officer elected by the Senate in March 1789. He is a constitutional officer. You don't find words in the Constitution about the majority leader or minority leader or majority whip or minority whip. I have been in at least three of those positions, majority leader, majority whip--at least two of them. And minority leader, so I have been three of them. But the President pro tempore is a constitutional officer. I happen to be a Senator from West Virginia. And I happen to have on my heart, which is heavily burdened, a speech. And I want to unburden my heart. I don't intend to take undue advantage of the person who is presiding now. Perhaps he is caught in the unfortunate circumstance that there is no other Senator available to take the chair, in which case nobody will hear me; I cannot speak. This Senator wants to raise a concern, wants to express a concern about the situation, if we have come to that in the U.S. Senate. Senators ought to ponder that. And there ought to be some Senators at least who would be willing--and I am sure there are Senators in town-- not every one of the Senators who happen to not be on the floor today, not every one of them is absent from the city. They know what their duties are as Senators. I know what my duty is. It is my duty to get out of my bed and come here and preside, if no other Senators can be found and if it is important that the Senate stand in--I get out of my bed if that happens. I know what my responsibilities are, and it kind of offends me that we seem to have come to a situation this afternoon when no other Senators ``are available to take the chair,'' and the Senator in the chair has to leave shortly. I am very thankful to the Senator in the chair. I asked him a question and he, I am sure, needs to go soon. But he has expressed the viewpoint and the willingness to stay here as long as I want to speak. I am not going to take advantage of him and pretty soon I will yield the floor. But I would put it in these words: It is a dreadful thought to me, when I am told that there are no other Senators available. I don't say this critically of the individual who carried this message to me. It is not the making of that individual, that person who is carrying out the duties of that person in doing that. I am sure there must be difficulty in finding Senators. But what is wrong? What has become of the Senate and its place in the Constitution? What has become of the Senate? It has been here, now, for 215 years. What has become of the Senate? What has become of the Senate, the greatest deliberative body, we hear so often, a body in which a Senator can stand on his or her feet and speak as long as those feet can carry that Senator? The floor cannot be taken from a Senator unless he has offended the Senate and a point of order is made that the Senator take his seat and he is required to take his seat. If he speaks in terms that are offensive to another Senator, that person's character, he might be asked to take his seat. Or if he speaks offensively concerning a State of this Union, he might be required to take his seat. But now I am going to be required to take my seat because there is no other Senator available, I understand, to take the duties of the chair. Mr. President, we ought not in this Senate to have that situation arise again, and I am sorry it arose because it kind of takes away from the theme that I was trying to say here. But it is worth bringing out. Certainly, I think it is worth surfacing because, if that is going to be the situation, then we are in bad shape. The distinguished Democratic whip earlier today told me that he had an engagement. He had an appointment, I believe, back in his home State. He had to leave at around 3 today and I understood that. That is fine. He told me in plenty of time. He told me this probably before noon today that if I was going to make a lengthy speech, he would have to leave. So I understand that. But there should be some other Senator willing to take the chair, and I have a feeling there are other Senators in town who would come and preside if need be. All that aside, now, let me close my remarks. In closing I want to thank the officers of the Senate, the staff members of the Senate who have to remain here. They are here in front of us--the Parliamentarian, the journal clerk, the reading clerk and counting clerk and the pages and the people at the desk. They are here. I want to thank them and apologize for my taking the time this afternoon, but we all know what the responsibilities are of officers of the Senate. We know what the responsibilities of clerks and employees of the Senate are when we sign on, and we know what the responsibilities of Senators are when we sign on. Having said that, I offer my apologies to everyone if I imposed on their time. I offer my apologies, most appropriately and more precisely, to the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, who is presiding at this moment and who has very graciously indicated his willingness to sit in that chair until I close. The whip asked me to close the Senate. So if the whip or the majority leader had any special requests or any Senator had any special request to make before I close the Senate, I will be very happy if someone would present me with those requests. In the meantime, let me close my printed remarks. It is only a page and a half, and they will go very fast. Our form of government-- Senator Mansfield pointed out-- is based on a system of checks and balances. If this system becomes seriously out of balance at any point, the whole system is jeopardized. Senator Mansfield noted: There is a profound difference between an essential degree of secrecy to achieve a specific purpose and secrecy for the mere sake of secrecy. Once secrecy becomes sacrosanct, it invites abuse. Senator Mansfield recognized, as I do, that the CIA is by nature and necessity a secretive organization, but it is not an organization that should operate outside our constitutional system, not outside our system of government. With the Senate select committee to study government operations with respect to intelligence agencies--in other words, the Church Committee, named after the chairman of that committee, the late chairman, Frank Church, the Church Committee--we embarrassingly and tragically learned just how ``seriously out of balance'' that agency was. The Senate committee discovered that the CIA had been involved in illegal, improper, and unethical activities, including the overthrow of democratically elected governments, attempted assassinations of foreign leaders, and in violation of foreign countries. In testimony before the Church Committee, the late Clark Clifford acknowledged: The lack of proper controls has resulted in a free-wheeling course of conduct on the part of operations within the intelligence community that has led to spectacular failures and much unfortunate publicity. That was one of the architects of the National Security Act of 1947 speaking. Three decades after its enactment, Mr. Clifford was complaining about continuing imperfections and the damage that had been done to our country. I am very concerned that 30 years from now Congress will be struggling to rectify the problems we will be creating with the hastily considered enactment of this legislation as it is written, creating the Department of Homeland Security, according to the legislation that is written and before the Senate. How much harm could be done in the meantime cannot be imagined. I am referring to damage to the rights and the liberties that we hold most dear: civil rights, labor rights, labor protections, civil liberties of all Americans. I will go into those further. I intended to get into some of them this afternoon. I will not do so. I am talking about damage to our constitutional process. I see one other Senator, the distinguished Senator on the Republican side of the aisle. I assume he would like to take the floor, if I give it up. I didn't intend to give it up until we adjourned. But if the distinguished Senator wishes me to yield to him 5 minutes before I adjourn the Senate, I will adjourn in the absence of the majority whip and the majority leader. But I will do so by their request. Does the Senator wish me to yield for a question?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New York for her questions and her comments. Mr. President, I have been informed that the distinguished occupant of the chair, Mr. Wyden, has to leave soon, has to depart the chair; is that correct?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield for the purpose without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for stating so lucidly and so articulately a reference to the needs of the people of her State, in reference to the needs of the people who are on the ground, in reference to the needs of the first responders, in reference to the needs of the firefighters. She is preeminently correct in her summation of what has happened in that Mr. Stevens and I--and again the full Appropriations Committee, Republican and Democratic-- acted in a very bipartisan way, have time and again responded affirmatively and effectively to the needs of the people of New York and the people of the Nation. New York was attacked, and within 3 days my committee, the committee of Mr. Stevens, the Appropriations Committee, appropriated $40 billion. Time and again, we have responded, and time and again the distinguished Senator--both Senators from New York, the Senator who is now at her desk and the senior Senator from New York who talked with me before having to catch an airplane today and had to leave. He could not be on the floor today because he had something else he was required to do and was expected to do. So he is not present now, but he talked with me today on the floor when the Senate returned to the homeland security bill. And while the Senate was on the Department of Interior appropriations bill, he talked with me again about the needs of his State, the State which he so ably represents. And just a few days ago, within this last week it was, the Senator from New York came to see me in my office. It was not the first time she had come to me to talk about the needs of that great city, the city of New York, and its great people. Many times, she and the senior Senator, Mr. Schumer, have come to my office. Last week, she came to my office in the early evening hours of the day and expressed to me the need for three items especially. She wanted those items in the appropriations bill. We are debating an appropriations bill and it is taking a long time. It should not take this long. We ought to have had this bill passed and sent to the President. In this Appropriations Committee which I chair and which Mr. Ted Stevens, I will say, cochairs realistically, that committee has reported all 13 appropriations bills several weeks ago which have to be passed this year. They have been reported from my committee. They have been sent to the Senate and they appear on the Senate calendar. Those 13 appropriations bills are very slow in getting to the President. Not one has gone to the President. The House Appropriations Committee--and I do not speak with disrespect there; they have a wonderful chairman over there in Congressman Young and a wonderful ranking member over there in Dave Obey. They speak their minds. They speak their hearts. But that chairman over there has some people, other high offices he has to deal with in that body. He cannot always do what he may wish to do. The House is a little different from the Senate. In the Senate, of course, we can talk and kind of speak our minds, and we can take independent actions here. That Senator from New York who holds the floor over there at this moment, she is standing right by her desk. She came to my office last week and importuned me to find a way at some point that she would like to introduce an amendment or she wanted an amendment introduced or wanted to amend one of those bills, take care of those three items in particular that she addressed to me. And then, lo and behold, earlier this week I held up a letter brought to me, delivered to me, not by the U.S. Mail but by someone from the Senator's office. I believe she came by my office and did not find me in the office at that time, so she left a letter, which I have already gotten consent to have printed in the Record. She wrote me a letter. She was not just saying, I want mine. She was saying, these are needed, also by the people in the other States of this Union. So yesterday Senator Stevens and I joined in an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill which comes out of the Appropriations subcommittee that I chair, the subcommittee on the Department of the Interior. In that amendment, Senator Stevens and I have entered and offered, we have attempted to address the needs of the firemen, of the security of our nuclear plants, and other pressing homeland security needs among which are the three items in which the Senator expressed interest. So, time and again we have done this. Time and again, the Republicans and Democrats on that subcommittee have joined to deal with the home security needs. So the answer is, yes, those needs have been expressed by the Senator, those needs have been addressed by the Appropriations Committee, and even now, or when the Senate gets back on the Interior appropriations bill, there is the amendment by Senator Stevens and myself which will address some remaining needs in the amount of over $900 million in that amendment. So it is national in scope, but within that national-in-scope measure is the State of New York.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in response to the question from the very able Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, I respond in the affirmative with a resounding ``yes.'' The Senator from New York has written me on two occasions about the needs of her constituents. And without losing my right to the floor, I ask unanimous consent that--I believe the Senator has sent me one or two letters. She has spoken to me a number of times off the floor and on the floor in this regard. My memory is not infallible, but she sent me one or two letters. I do not have them right now, but I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, at the conclusion of our remarks that are taking place in this colloquy, those two letters.

Mr. BYRD. In response to the question from the distinguished Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, that is absolutely correct. Senator Stevens, as the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, and I-- and the full committee of 29 members made up of 15 Democrats and 14 Republicans--have responded in that spirit, and we have provided for the consideration of the Senate and ultimately the entire Congress our views as to the appropriations that are needed.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in response to the question, that has certainly been the intention of the Senator from West Virginia who currently is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate. That is the intention, and I believe I am beginning to be successful in getting some ears attuned. The Senator is correct.

Mr. BYRD. Again, the Senator is correct.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, is preeminently correct. That authorization for power of the purse is found in section 9 of article I of the Constitution. Tie that together with the first section of article 1 and we find where laws are made and the fact that appropriations may be withdrawn from the Treasury in consequence only of an appropriation by law. Congress has to pay and pass the laws. The Senator is preeminently correct.

Mr. BYRD. This Senator has yielded. The Chair can't yield to the Senator from New York for a question. I may not have yielded. Now, Mr. President, I only yield to the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, for a question. Under the rules, I can do that, and I do that with the understanding that I do not yield the floor. So if I yield the floor, how can the Senator from New York be recognized? The Senator from New York is recognized by virtue, under the rules, of my yielding for a question.

Mr. BYRD. The Chair does not recognize the Senator from New York. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor. I yield to the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, for a question on the condition that I retain my recognition from the Chair as holding the floor.