Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Let me finish this thought, and I will be happy to yield. I saw all those on television. They were talking about the President launching an attack on Iraq. I have no brief for the Government of Iraq. I have never met Mr. Ritter. I know nothing about Mr. Ritter. I think Iraq under the current regime is a threat. But not one of those individuals who are high in the Government of this country--not one--mentioned the Constitution of the United States. Every one of them had to swear an oath to protect the Constitution, but not one mentioned this Constitution. And to hear them talk, we were ready to go to war. We were prepared to go to war. The President had the authority--I am putting that in my words--the President had the authority to go to war, to launch an unprovoked military attack on a sovereign state. He has just assumed that he has that power under the Constitution. No, not under the Constitution. It is assumed that the President of the United States has that power. There are smart lawyers around and they can take either side of the case and come up with a good argument. They can win either side--most good lawyers, who can take either side. But not Senators who have sworn to support and defend this Constitution and who are here in this august, 100-Member body. And I have seen this whole body change, except for one person. I have seen the whole body--300 Members of the whole body--change three times in my 44 years in the Senate. But not one mentioned the Constitution. I know what the Constitution says. The Constitution says that Congress shall have power to declare war. We can split hairs all we want, but there are the words. I know there are traditionalists who believe every word of that Constitution, and that was the position that was generally held in this country up until the Korean war. But there are revisionists today who want to change that. They want to give the President power; they think he should have it. So that is what we hear from those who want the Commander in Chief to have that power. The Commander in Chief was a title to be given to the civil authority at war--not to the military--and to make sure of that we don't have a four-star general sitting as Commander in Chief; we don't have a three- star general, or a two-star general, or a one-star general. We don't have a military officer sitting in that Oval Office. No, we have a man of the people, who is a civil authority. He is the President of the United States. He is the Commander in Chief. You fellows with the stars on your shoulders, don't get too heady here. This Constitution says, in essence, a civilian, a civil officer, a civil authority shall sit at the top. Those revisionists ought to read the ``Federalist Papers,'' also. What do we have here? Our constitutional government that the Framers gave us in 1787--once the States, in their conventions, had ratified that Constitution--nine of them--said, in essence, the power to declare war and the power to make war shall not be reposed in the same hands. So that person, who is Commander in Chief, is the civil authority down there. He is Commander in Chief, but he cannot declare war, except in a circumstance where this Nation is being subjugated to a sudden attack. The President has inherent power under the Constitution. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. The President has inherent power to use the military forces at his command in order to repel a sudden attack--sudden, unforeseen, where maybe Congress is at home, Congress is out on recess, Congress has gone home for the Christmas holidays, or the Thanksgiving holidays, or the Jewish holidays, or Congress may have recessed for a month in August and they are not here. But the President has inherent power in this Constitution to use the military to repel a sudden attack against this country or its military forces. Nobody argues with that. What is being debated here is the President launching, through some figment of the imagination, or some resolution which has run its course, and under the term ``Commander in Chief,'' an unprovoked attack against a sovereign state--to use a military offensive. We are not talking about a defensive situation. We are talking about an offensive situation in which the President of the United States would attack a sovereign state--in this case, Iraq. I think Iraq poses a threat under the present regime. I don't argue with that. I don't have any argument with the fact that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Of course, we are all evil; every man is. The Bible says no man is good. If we look at the programming that appears on our television stations, we will probably conclude that this country is not exactly a nation that is not evil. It is an evil nation in some respects. So let's be careful. I would be careful throwing that word around--``evil''--and saying that this is a war between good and evil. It may be a war against evil, but it is not necessarily between a good nation and an evil nation. But that is off on another track. The power to declare war and the power to make war are under different hands. Those powers are reposed in different entities. Our Constitution reposes the power to declare war in Congress, the duly elected, directly elected Representatives of the American people. Of course, the Members of the Senate were not directly elected by the people back in those days, but there was a requirement that the power to declare war was in Congress. Congress is made up of two bodies. At one time it was elected by the respective State legislatures, but no more. That has been changed by constitutional amendment, as we all know. Today, the points are still there. The basis is still there. Declaring war and making war are two different things, and the Framers saw to it that the Commander in Chief would be not a person who would declare war. That is the person who will make war. That was discussed in the Constitutional Convention and that is the way we have it today. Now, I, therefore, say that this President is not authorized to declare war. Why? Because there has not been a sudden, unforeseen attack on the United States. Iraq is not attacking the United States at the moment. If the President were to launch a sudden offensive on Iraq, where is his authority to do so? He is not doing it to repel a sudden attack against the United States. No, he is doing it because he knows, as I know, that Saddam Hussein is a threat to us all, to the safety of the people in this area, his own people, and the people in the region, and a threat, if you carry it far enough, to us. It is not all that sudden, and who should declare war in that event? Congress, not the U.N. I applaud the President for going to the U.N. and laying out his case as to why the U.N. had its chances, had failed, had not lived up to its responsibilities, and he made that case well. But the case has not been made. It will be talked about eventually; it is being talked about a great deal now. I read all about it in the newspapers, I see it on television and hear it on the radio. The case is now being made for an attack unilaterally by this country against a sovereign state when this country has not been attacked. The purpose is not to repel a sudden invasion of the United States or a sudden attack. If the President were to do this, it would be unprovoked at this moment. Where is the President's authority? They say it is in the resolution adopted by Congress in 1991. It is not there. The authority is not there for the President today to launch an unprovoked attack against Iraq. They said it was in the resolution last year. I say the authorization is not there. It is not there. We can argue and talk all night about that, but it is not there. Show me; anyone, show me. It is not there. They say he is the Commander in Chief. Well, so what; he is the Commander in Chief. Once war is declared or authorized by the Congress, then the Commander in Chief will make the war. We will have one head at the military and that was the right thing to do. Then an attack, if it is authorized by Congress, can go forward. Let's don't meddle with this Constitution. There will always be defenders of this Constitution, and there are some who will remind the country of the Constitution when they are on television. So do not assume or take for granted that the President has that power. It is this Constitution, the Constitution of the United States, with 39 names attached to it. Not one word do I hear by those who appear on television, not one word about the Constitution. I said that yesterday. I am going to say it again today. Not one word did I hear. Perhaps I missed something, but I do not think I did. Not one word. They all just assume that the President is going to do it, he has a right to do it, he has an authority to do it. If our administration has its way, we will take this fellow out, and we will take him out unilaterally; we are not going to wait on anything. Wait a minute, there came a second thought. Some people began to ask questions. Other nations began to ask questions. Our friends began to ask questions. Our friends in the region began to ask questions, and so a decision came. And so, we will hold up a little bit here. We will go to the U.N. That is right. That is good. Go to the U.N. The U.N. should face up to its responsibilities and should lay down the precepts as to why this regime must go. The U.N. should express a world view to get the other nations of the world to see it is in their interest that there be a regime change or that there be inspections-- bona fide inspections, not like the inspections that were going on up until a few years back, in 1998, I believe. The President has done that. I say let's don't close our eyes to the fact that this Constitution still lives. Mr. President, I apologize to the Senator from New York. I did not really intend to talk that long. I intended to yield the floor for a question from her, and I intended to do it earlier. I am very happy, with my apologies, to yield to the distinguished Senator. She is a very distinguished Senator from the State of New York; she is a former First Lady of this Nation. I yield to her. I am grateful that she has a question, that she has perhaps some questions. I am glad somebody is beginning to listen. So I yield to the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. There you have it in a nutshell. The CIA became a government within a government which could evade oversight of its activities by drawing the cloak of secrecy around it. For years my immediate predecessor as majority leader was Senator Mike Mansfield. There has been presiding in the chair up until a moment ago the Senator from Montana, Max Baucus, but now we have another Senator in the chair. That majority leader from the State of Montana-- at the time, Senator Mike Mansfield--argued for the CIA to be brought under congressional supervision. There was Mike Mansfield. There was my predecessor as majority leader of the Senate. He was majority leader many years. I was his successor. The late Mike Mansfield said: What I am concerned with is the CIA's position of responsibility to no one but the National Security Council. He continued: The CIA is free from practically every form of congressional check. That was his caution. He said: There is no regular methodical review of this agency. Now hear the voice of the late Mike Mansfield coming down through the years. Listen to him. Listen to the late Mike Mansfield: What I am concerned with is the CIA's position of responsibility to no one but the National Security Council. The CIA is free from practically every form of congressional check. The late Senator Mike Mansfield cautioned: The CIA is free from practically every form of congressional check. There is no regular methodical review of this agency. Senator Mansfield pointed out: Our form of government is based on a system of checks and balances. Hear that. Hear the voice of Mike Mansfield, his words coming down through the years, reverberating in this Chamber. I hope they will be reverberating in the hearts and minds of the men and women who sit today in this great body, the august 100, the special 100 who have been elected by 280 million people in phases; according to our illustrious Framers, three classes--so that there would be a staged rotation of this body, with the Senate in transition all the time, so there would never be a completely new Senate, so there would never be a new complete turnover of the Senators. Today they number 100. The House, theoretically, can turn over in 2 years. We could have a completely new House, theoretically, in 2 years under the Constitution. But not here. One-third of the Senate only every 2 years, one-third of the Senate only; and then another third for 2 years; and then the third third for 2 years. That was the genius of the Framers. Here we have a continuing body, and we have checks and balances written into this Constitution. And there was Senator Mansfield pointing it out: Our form of government is based on a system of checks and balances. They are written into this Constitution which I hold in my hand. I saw some of the greatest of the figures in our Government last Sunday on television. There was the Secretary of State. There was the Vice President of the United States, who is the President of the Senate but who cannot address the Senate except by unanimous consent. There was Dr. Condoleezza Rice, a very able person who is not confirmed by the Senate. She was on television. And there was the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on television. There were others. I listened to all of them. I don't often listen to television, even on Sundays, when more of the people who are most often seen and heard and read about in the media are on the Sunday shows. But I listened to them all last week because I expected them to say something about this subject of the war, the subject of an attack, an attack on a sovereign state.

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely. The Senator, by his question, has really answered his question. We saw that the country took more time in the 1940s to create a Department of Defense. It took time. It had the input of the heads of the military branches and their advice. Mr. Truman took time. It wasn't enacted during the heat of battle. The thought was there. The suggestion was there. Committees held hearings, and buildings were proposed during that time. But it was after the war that the Department of Defense was created. It wasn't all done in a hurry. There was need to do something along those lines. Many Members of Congress introduced legislation to carry out the results, to create and reorganize the Government in that respect. The military people who were directly involved and had input put. We may be in a situation here where we can't wait 4 years, or 3 years, or 2 years, as was the case there. But there is a direct parallel. They took their time. In taking their time, it didn't mean they were just dragging their feet. They took time. During the time that was passing, they talked about this; they got the advice of the military. They were preparing all along their action--but do it right; not do it quickly but do it right. The same is true here in many respects. The point is that we must not do it quickly. We are being urged in the Senate: Get on with it, pass it. The President, with his backdrop as he goes around the country and appears before the military organizations and others: Do it, do it, do it now. There was a little ad I used to hear on television not too many months ago: Do it now; do it here. Do it now; do it here. Well, that is what I am hearing: Do it now, do it now, do it now, do it here, do it quickly. I am saying no, no. The object is, do it right--not do it by this weekend or not do it by next weekend, and not to do it in a hurry, do it right. This is a far-reaching measure. If this act is passed as the administration wants it passed, believe you me, it is going to affect the civil liberties of Americans. That is what I am saying. Just hold on a minute. In the bill by Mr. Lieberman that came out of his committee--I will refer to that momentarily to just kind of jar the senses of Members of the Senate who have not been paying very much attention--many of them. They are busy people. They have their attentions drawn to other very important matters all the time. There is just not enough time allotted to us as Senators to do our work right in every case. There just isn't enough time. I just want to read one provision from Mr. Lieberman's bill. It is on page 186 of the bill. It is title III that sets up a national strategy for combating terrorism and the homeland security response. Under title III of the committee bill, in section 301 designated ``Strategy,'' under the first paragraph: The Secretary and the Director-- That means the Director of the Department of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Homeland Security-- shall develop the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism and Homeland Security Response-- They shall do this. I will read it-- for detection, prevention, protection, response and recovery to counterterrorism threats, including threats, vulnerability and risk assessment and analysis, and the plans, policies, training exercises, evaluation, and interagency cooperation addresses each such action relating to such threats. Responsibilities Of The Secretary. The Secretary shall have responsibility for portions of the Strategy-- Strategy with a capital S-- addressing border security, critical infrastructure protection, emergency preparation and response, and integrating State and local efforts with activities of the Federal Government. Next paragraph: Responsibilities Of The Director. The Director shall have overall responsibility for development of the Strategy-- Again, with a capital S-- and particularly for those portions of the Strategy addressing intelligence, military assets, law enforcement and diplomacy. Next paragraph: Contents. The contents of the Strategy-- Strategy with a capital S-- shall include-- Get that: The contents of the Strategy which will be developed by the Secretary of the Department and the Director-- shall include: (1) a comprehensive statement of mission, goals, objectives, desired end-state priorities and responsibilities; (2) policies and procedures to maximize the collection, translation, analysis, exploitation, and dissemination of information relating to combating terrorism and the homeland security response throughout the Federal Government and with State and local authorities; (3) plans for countering chemical, biological radiological, nuclear and explosives and cyber threats. Now get this. Paragraph 4 is one of the items that will make up the contents of the Strategy with a capital S--strategy that is developed by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of Homeland Security--the Director. Here is someone I want the Senate to be required to confirm--this Director. We will provide for the confirmation of the Secretary. But I want the Director confirmed, too. Get this. This is paragraph 4 of the Strategy with a capital S. There is much more to be said about this Strategy set forth in title III. But listen to this. This is part of the plan, part of the Strategy. (4) plans for integrating the capabilities-- My-- And assets of the United States military into all aspects of the Strategy. . . . Now, does that get the attention of any Senator? We have something we call posse comitatus--some would say comitatus, which would be correct, too--both. But there are laws, there are statutes, that have to do with posse comitatus. And I shall have a speech to make on posse comitatus, or comitatus, at some point, hopefully, or likely, if we continue. But forgetting the statute for a moment, listen to this. The Secretary and the Director are going to draw up a strategy for dealing with this homeland security. And what is part of something that this bill is requiring that they include in their plans, and that they have the authority to develop and include in its strategy? Let me read that again. It says: The contents of the Strategy shall include-- And we jump down to (4): plans for integrating-- What does that mean? integrating the capabilities-- My, ``the capabilities.'' What are they talking about, ``capabilities''? . . . include . . . integrating the capabilities and assets-- What does that mean, ``assets''? of the United States military into all aspects of the Strategy. Now, what do we have here? What are we dragging into this legislation? Why, that should cause every Senator in this body to raise an eyebrow. What are we talking about here? What are we voting for? I will have more to say on this. I believe that at last I am getting a little attention to what I say about this homeland security. Let me read that again so it will be in the Record for the weekend, and Senators can think about it a little bit. And the media may have had their attention called to something here that is in this bill. Let me tell you something. I expect Senators would open their eyes even more as to what is in the administration's plan and what is in the House bill. But just in the Lieberman bill, which, as I say, is an improvement over these other approaches by the administration and the House, the House of Representatives--let me read that again: ``The contents of the Strategy''--this is in title III--``The contents of the Strategy shall'' be developed by the Director of Homeland Security and by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security--yes, my attention has been called to an error I made. The correct title of the Director is the Director of the new Office for Combating Terrorism. I referred to the Director of Homeland Security. This is the exact title of the director. And this, the Lieberman bill, and these two titles here, have to do with this new office. These two titles in the Lieberman bill have to do with the establishment of this new Office for Combating Terrorism, established in title II. So I will just refer to this as the director. The Director and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security will devise this strategy for securing the country. That is what we are all talking about. But this bill requires that among the responsibilities of the Director are these: The Director shall have overall responsibility for development of the Strategy, and particularly for those portions of the Strategy addressing intelligence, military assets, law enforcement, and diplomacy. And among the ``Contents'': ``The contents of the Strategy shall include''--(1), (2), (3,) and now (4)--there are nine items to be included in ``The contents of the Strategy.'' The fourth one is this: plans for integrating the capabilities and assets of the United States military into all aspects of the Strategy. . . . Now, what are we going to have? A police state? Are we going to have the Army and the Navy, the Marines--are they going to get involved? I don't think anybody wants to do that. I don't think anybody is thinking of that. But look at this language, what it says. We have to contemplate the unintended consequences of what we do here. Even at best, if we have both eyes and both ears, and the full attention and focus of our collective brains, and we pass an item, we give it careful attention, there may still be unintended, unforeseen consequences that will flow from that act that we passed. How much more so might that happen if we pass an act in a hurry and don't apply the full focus of our faculties in addressing that legislative matter? The question answers itself. Finally, let me just read, once more, item No. (4) in ``The contents of the Strategy'': (4) plans for integrating-- ``Integrating,'' what does that mean? integrating the capabilities and assets of the United States military. . . . We all know what that means when we talk about the military and the capabilities of the U.S. military-- plans for integrating the capabilities and assets of the United States military into all-- Not just a few, all-- aspects of the Strategy. Well, I just wanted to read into the Record that excerpt from the committee bill. Now, perhaps by the fact that these two distinguished Senators asked me questions today about it--a relative of the Senator from Minnesota was a signer of the Constitution of the United States, signing from the State of New Jersey on that occasion. So this fine Senator is here on the floor today and has asked me questions. And the equally fine and good and able Senator from Vermont has asked some questions. So at last--at last--hallelujah, we are getting some questions. Somebody is beginning to pay attention to what is in this measure. Perhaps the greatest and the gravest defect of the National Security Act to reorganize the Armed Forces, continuing in this vein, was the failure of Congress to provide oversight of the CIA. When the Central Intelligence Agency was established, there was no congressional oversight. It was responsible only to the National Security Council and the President, and what a mistake that turned out to be. As a result, the late Clark Clifford wrote: ``The CIA became a government within a government.'' Listen to that--became a government within a government. That is exactly what we have here. We have the makings of a government within a government. If the administration were to have its way, we would have a government within a government. We would have a government that is run out of the White House, and the Cabinet officers would be put to one side. The Secretaries of the various Departments, just put them aside. Put the Congress off limits, forget it. We will run things from this White House. That is what I am concerned about, as I see here. As the late Clark Clifford wrote: The CIA became a government within a government which could evade oversight of its activities by drawing the cloak of secrecy around it. (Mr. WYDEN assumed the Chair.)

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I think I grasped the question that was asked. It was well put. I think I have a problem with the Senator's microphone and where he is standing. Would he shorten his question?

Mr. BYRD. I again thank the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I am delighted. I am just delighted that he came to the floor and made this statement. I am delighted that he believes we should take our time. Not an exorbitant amount of time, not an inordinate amount of time, but take time, the necessary time to scrutinize this proposal and act. It is not so important that we act quickly; it is important that we do it right. That is all I have been saying. Let's do this right.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. He referred to this Senator as the Senator from Virginia. That was inadvertent and it was pretty much out of levity, in a way, that I wanted him to get the States right and recognize me as a Senator from West Virginia, which he knows. People do have that slip of the tongue. It happens many times. But what the Senator said--putting that entirely aside--is what I have been saying. We need to take the time and not act in haste. That is what we are being pushed to do, and the press, the media has not paid enough attention, in my judgment, overall, to this bill and to the Lieberman substitute. Somebody hasn't been listening. My colleagues, I do not believe, have been listening. That is why I said slow down a little bit here. I am grateful to the divine hand that brought these Senators to the floor. At least this Senator from West Virginia is getting a little attention. It is not that I want attention, but this Senator from West Virginia is getting a little attention as to what he is saying, why this stubborn guy from West Virginia--I will call him a guy--this stubborn upstart from West Virginia is trying to stop the train, trying to stop our hurrying forth, acting in the least amount of time, acting almost immediately to give to the President this legislation creating a Department of Homeland Security. At last, at last, at last two of my colleagues have asked questions today. I am sure there will be other Senators who will do the same, now that I am beginning to break through, get through the ice, get through the veil that this is a measure that is vitally important to every individual in this country today, every man, woman, boy, and girl. It goes beyond just creating a Department of Homeland Security. That is what the distinguished Senator said. He is talking about intelligence. He is getting into the intelligence area of what is involved here. It is much more involved than just creating a Department of Homeland Security. I am for that. I have been for it. But I am glad, I am grateful to the distinguished Senator for what he has said here. He has capsuled this very large subject with respect to the National Security Act, how time passed, the steps that were taken, the pauses that occurred, the scrutiny that was given, and the fact that the heads of the military branches--the Navy and the Army and others--their thoughts were acquired, their recommendations were acquired, their advice was sought as to the creation of this new department of defense. So they had input into it. It wasn't done overnight. It didn't grow up like the prophet's gourd, overnight. It took time and that was a wise move. I thank the Senator for going into that particular aspect of this in depth. He has been thorough in what he has said with respect to the creation of the department of defense. I am grateful and the American people can be grateful to the Senator for what he has said, what he has contributed here today in just the few minutes he held the floor and he zeroed right in on one of the things that I eventually wanted to get to, and there are others. I am not going to say anything further now, if the Senator wants to ask a further question.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I didn't want him to repeat what he said for that part. But I wanted him just-- --

Mr. BYRD. Would the Senator mind repeating that and addressing his remarks to the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator----

Mr. BYRD. Right on. Right on. Let me hear that said again. I want to be sure I remember that.

Mr. BYRD. How about that.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Right again. What was that?

Mr. BYRD. Say that again, please.

Mr. BYRD. Say that again.

Mr. BYRD. How about that. Right.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is certainly laying down a very impressive premise for the question which he will ultimately ask. Please go ahead. The Senate needs to hear this.

Mr. BYRD. I would like to hear those.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, allusions to that act, the National Security Act, which was created in 1947 after a period of at least 3 or 4 years. This Senator is aware of the allusions that have been made to that act and the references that have been equated, the reorganization of the Government under the Bush Administration and how it is compared.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield to the distinguished Senator for a question, retaining my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very dedicated, patriotic, able, and distinguished Senator for the diligence with which he pursues his responsibilities as a U.S. Senator. I appreciate very much what he has said with reference to me. Those remarks are very flattering. They might, if left alone, appear to be more than exactly the fact. I don't have a lot of experience, but I have seen some departments created during my tenure. I remember the new Department of Health, Education and Welfare, I believe it was called. I remember I was here and voted for that Department; the new Department of Energy, I voted for that; the new Department of Education, I voted for that; the new Department of Veterans Affairs, I voted for that. Now, as to reorganizations, I can take a look at recent experience as to reorganizations. The administration, since the September 11 attacks, has announced at least 3 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 INS to two of the September 11 hijackers 6 months after they crashed planes into the World Trade Center Towers, the administration announced that the INS, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, would be reorganized--split into a services bureau and a separate enforcement bureau. Last May, following the 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 that we have expended, little left but dizziness. To avoid a similar fate of this new department, which I support--I am not opposed to creating a new Department of Homeland Security. As a matter of fact, I urged that months ago. The story behind that, which I recounted more than once, about the efforts of Senator Stevens and myself to have Tom Ridge, the Director of Homeland Security, which was created by Presidential Executive order--not by statute--come up and testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee on the budget, on the homeland security agency's budget, he would not come. I have gone through that ad nauseam, time and time again. I may go through it again. Right now, it is sufficient to say that we had an unfortunate experience there. So I suggested that we have the Homeland Security Director be a person appointed by the President, and with the consent of the Senate, requiring Senate confirmation of that position, that officer. I recommended that, and we could not get him to come by invitation, the President having put his foot down hard and in concrete, being immovable, claiming that ``this is my staff person, this is my adviser. He is not required to go up there.'' Well, with all of the responsibilities and the authorities that were being assumed or carried out by the new Homeland Security Director, Mr. Ridge--he was going all over the country speaking to chambers of commerce, explaining his work and the things we were doing and the things we needed to do to secure our homeland--he would appear anywhere, anytime, apparently, because I read of many of his appearances around the country. Each time I read about his being here, there, or out in Montana, or wherever, I thought: Why can't he come up before the people's branch and tell the people's representatives what he wants, what he needs, what this country needs, what the people need for their security and safety? Why doesn't he come before the elected representatives of the people? Oh, yes, he is an adviser to the President, but the President has lots of them. He is on the staff of the President, yes. But this man is carrying a much larger bag of responsibilities than the ordinary staff person, the ordinary adviser to the President. I know the President has to have advisers to whom he can talk. They do not need to come before Congress. I told the administration: Look, we are not going to ask Mr. Ridge, your Homeland Security Director, who was appointed pursuant to a Presidential order--we are not going to ask him about his private conversations with the President. We are not interested. We want to ask this man, who is the point man for the administration on homeland security--he is the person who is running around telling everybody what it is. He is the man running around all over the country spilling his beans to this agency, that agency, whatever agency, whatever committee or whatever group of people, fraternal order or civic order, whatever it might be--he is the man running all over the country talking to the people everywhere and going up to Canada. He is the man who has gone down to Mexico and talked about various and sundry subjects pertaining to border controls, surely, and so on. Why can't he come to Jenkins Hill, on which this great architectural structure has been for 200 years or thereabouts? Why can't he come here and answer questions by the people's elected representatives in the Congress? After all, it is the people's money. He is being paid out of the pockets of the American people, this Mr. Ridge is. Pennies do not fall from heaven. He is being paid by the taxpayers, and the President is being paid by the taxpayers. Who pays him? He says this man cannot come up, this man does not have to go up to Congress. That is the President talking. Who pays him? The people. The people. Who pays us? The people. So the people are entitled to know a little about this, about how their moneys are being spent. That is why we have public hearings in the Appropriations Committee and by the subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee. The hearings are in public. The hearings are open. There can be a huge audience out there in some of those massive, handsome rooms over in the Senate office buildings. People can hear. They can see on television. They can hear over the radio. They can hear their people, their representatives, and they can hear the President's man, all of us being paid by the people, some of us being elected by the people. But some of those who testify are not elected by the people. Tom Ridge is not elected by the people; he has not been elected by the people, except to run as Governor of Pennsylvania and run for membership in the other body, which he has done. He has been Governor of Pennsylvania. He has been a Member of the other body of the Congress. So he is a man who knows a great deal about the subject matter, and he has thrown himself into his work. He is the expert. He knows the answers to a lot of these questions. He is a very intelligent man, a very articulate person. He is the person in charge. Why shouldn't the Congress hear him? They said: We will be happy to send him up for briefings. He can meet with Senators and House Members and have little briefings, and we can tell you all about it. That is not the point. His portfolio is much greater than the portfolio of an average staff person of the President or an ``adviser'' to the President. He is dealing with a subject that is virtually brand new to the American people. Last September 11 brought to the view of the American people something we had not seen before, something we had not experienced before, and opened to all of us a new kind of world, and the world is changed forever. Our country in some ways is changed forever. Every person in this country--man, woman, boy, or girl--their life is changed forever. It is not going to be a short time. The President himself has said this war--they call it a war; it is a different kind of war--this war is going to last a long time. It is going to take us a long time. Does anyone think we are going to get all the terrorists ever? No. We have not even gotten Bin Laden yet. We do not know where he is. He may be alive; he may not be alive. But whether he is alive or not, his agents are spread, we hear, in 60 countries or more. This is something big, and it affects our lives, it affects our work in the Senate. Why shouldn't the person who is the top man in the United States with reference to homeland security appear before a Senate committee, the Appropriations Committee? We are not seeking to put him on the spot or to embarrass the President by some question, such as: Tell me about your private conversations with your President. We are not going to do that. The Senate Appropriations Committee has been in business for 135 years. This committee was established in 1867. Think of that. Two years after the Civil War ended--1867. Fifty percent, or more--a very high percentage--a great majority of some of our students in the polls do not know when the Civil War ended; they do not know that it even occurred in this country. But we know that in 1867 this Appropriations Committee in the Senate was established. Before that, the Finance Committee in the Senate, which had been established in 1816, did the appropriations work, as well as raising taxes, and so on. In 1867, the Finance Committee did that work no longer. Seven Members of the Senate were appointed to this new Appropriations Committee. I believe it was seven Members. In any event, the Appropriations Committee has been doing business ever since. The way we have done business is the right way. We get testimony; we get people to appear before the subcommittees. There are 13 subcommittees of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and every one of those subcommittees has subpoena power in that Appropriations Committee. That committee has subpoena power--the Appropriations Committee. No wonder everyone wants on the Appropriations Committee. That Appropriations Committee deals with the public purse, and by virtue of this Constitution, the power of the purse is vested in the legislative branch. Article I, section 9, of this Constitution, which I hold in my hand, vests the power of the purse in this body. So the right way to do it is to have public hearings. The people need to know what questions are asked. The people need to know what answers are being given. It is out there. Everybody can see it. Everybody can hear it. There is a record of it. Then when the appropriations bill is put together, the testimony of these witnesses is read again. There are hearings printed. Hearings will be available to members of the Appropriations Committee of what was said during the testimony by Mr. Ridge, if he had come before the committee. And when the bill is taken up on the floor, there are the printed hearings. They are available. There is a committee report-- aha, a committee report on that bill--for the benefit of the Senators who are to vote on the bill. That committee report is important. It is really laughable that the administration would propose that they would be willing to send up this man, who is the know-all, as far as anyone can know, about homeland security and what is being done by our Government, or what we hope to do--So the American people need to know that. The committee needs to know that. But he is going to come up in a private briefing? That is the administration's proposal: No, we will not let him come up there and get before that committee. No, no, no. He is the President's man. We are not going to let him come up. You do not call Condoleezza Rice. He is in the same position. No, he is not. You cannot equate the one with the other in this respect. So the committee is going to write a report. How important is a committee report? Suppose there is a court case at some point with respect to a provision in a bill. One of the things the court would need to know is what was said in the committee. In order to get the intention of the legislators, in order for the court to interpret the intention of the legislators with respect to that particular bill or that particular provision, the court may want to resort to a committee report. That has happened before in this country. What committee report is going to be around where we have a shadow government, as it were, with the administration officials coming up to the Senate and talking in private, behind closed doors? Oh, the doors can be open, that is all right, but there is no record. The people out there do not see what is going on. What kind of government is that? This is an open government--it is supposed to be--with respect to its appropriations, with respect to our bills. How utterly foolish the administration was to take that utterly foolish position in refusing to allow Tom Ridge to come before the Appropriations Committee of the Congress. That was utterly foolish. It poisoned the well. The result was a provision which Senator Stevens and I wrote into an appropriations bill providing that the Director of Homeland Security would indeed require confirmation by the Senate of the United States, and that appropriations bill came before the Senate not too long ago. Not one finger was raised against it. Not one Senator rose to strike that language from the bill. It was in the bill. Everybody knew it. The staff of every Senator saw it. They knew it, or they should have known it. Not one effort was made to remove it. That overall appropriations bill passed the Senate, including that provision, by a vote of 71 to 22--quite a secure majority, 71 to 22. I will try to remember that. That bill was passed, including that provision. I say to the distinguished senior Senator from Montana who presides today, that bill passed the Senate by a vote of 71 to 22, and went to conference. Oh, wait a minute. The administration suddenly sees on the horizon, here comes this bill, here comes this provision. Oh, Mr. Director, Mr. Tom Ridge, you know the Senate has--here it is right here, this appropriations bill. They are going to make you come up there. They are going to make you come up there. Mr. President, look at this bill here. The Senate is going to make this man come before the Senate of the United States in the Appropriations Committee. The President will not be able to say, well, he is an adviser of mine; he cannot come. The President will not be able to put his feet in concrete and say, this man is on my staff and my staff people do not have to come. Mr. President, it is in this bill. I do not care what you say. You can veto the bill, if you want to. Do you want to veto that appropriations bill? Do you want to veto that appropriations bill because it has that provision? Then you will have to explain to the American people why you will not let this man go before the Appropriations Committee of the Senate and answer questions of interest to the American people, questions dealing with their money, the money they pay in taxes to pay your salary, Mr. President, and to pay your salary, Mr. Ridge. Oh, you cannot hide behind that desk any longer. That part of the shadow government just will not work any longer because this legislation is going to require you to have that man of yours come up there. And you know what happened? Then down in the subterranean caverns, in the ill-lighted recesses of the bowels of the White House, four solemn individuals met one day and there was hatched the egg to provide the homeland security proposal. There was the egg. I do not care how warm the egg is, it still takes it 3 weeks to hatch. Try it sometime--3 weeks. But it did not take 3 weeks for that egg to hatch, not in that White House. The administration wanted to get out front on this provision that was in the appropriations bill, written in there by Senators Byrd and Stevens and supported by every member of that Appropriations Committee and not questioned by any Member of the Senate. It is on its way to conference, Mr. President. I tell you, we have to act quickly, and the President did act quickly. They came out and unveiled this great proposal that came to life like Minerva who sprang full grown and fully armed from the forehand of Jove. That is how it came about. Then there was Aphrodite who sprang from the ocean foam and was carried by a seashell or a leaf to a nearby island and then went on to Mount Olympus and appeared before the gods, and the gods were overcome by the beauty of Aphrodite. All of that happened. And the same way with this egg that hatched, it just sprang into being all of a sudden and here it was, this massive proposal by the President. He unveiled it, and they were quite successful in taking the people's eyes away from some of the other things that were demanding attention in the newspapers of the time. They took those things off the front page. Here was a new Department. Since then, the President and all the people in his administration, the King's men and women, have been out there saying: Pass this bill, pass this bill, which was hatched by four individuals. Let me see if I can remember their names. Mr. Ridge was one. Mr. Mitch Daniels was another. He is the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Gonzalez, I believe he is the President's counsel, and Mr. Card, I believe. I hope I am right. I am. Someone nodded in the affirmative to me and so I am. There it was in the newspapers. Those four gentlemen, very reputable persons, people of high caliber and unblemished reputations, as far as I know, and this was their idea. Now compare that group of four, working in the shadows, the dim light. The lights may have gone out, but I expect there might have been candles there, or perhaps oil lamps. I can just see the shadows, the figures of the shadows moving back and forth in those caverns, on the walls of those caverns, as the men remonstrated, and said this: We ought to have this, we ought to have that. Whatever they say. Anyhow, that was hatched down there. Now that was a different committee. Four individuals, from the committee that wrote the Declaration of Independence. By the way, I carry that Declaration of Independence right here in my shirt pocket. Who was on the committee that wrote that Declaration of Independence? Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Livingston. So there were five. My, my, look at those giants, five giants who wrote the Declaration of Independence. Had they been arrested by the British for treason, they could have been sent to England and they could have been hanged. And so could the others who signed that Declaration of Independence. The signers are all listed in this little book I hold in my hand. They were doing things that challenged. They were doing things for which they were willing to give their lives. They would have given their lives, had they been tried for treason. Those men committed treason against the government under which they then lived. The far reaches of the Parliament's hand, the King's hand, from Great Britain, from England, could have snatched them, taken their fortunes, taken them to England, tried them, taken their lives. So they pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred vows. How about those four in the White House? Were they pledging their lives and fortune? Quite a different committee, I must say. Anyhow, with all respect to the four men who are public servants, and who are doing their best, as they see it, for their President--quite a different matter.

Mr. BYRD. Just in a moment, if I may, and then I will yield. They are undergoing all of these changes. This will all be done within a period of 13 months following the signing by the President of the act. Thirteen months after that act becomes law, all this will be completed. My amendment does not change that calendar date as to when this massive transaction will be completed. My amendment provides that at the end of the 13 months this is envisioned as to be done the same way, the same thing--not the same way, but the same time period over all. Thirteen months occurs with respect to the Lieberman bill and with respect to my amendment, if my amendment is adopted--the same time period, 13 months. So what is the difference? Under the bill, the committee bill, once the Senate passes whatever it passes, and that is sent to conference, and it comes back, and it is signed into law, Congress is out of it except with respect to the appropriations that will go forward to the agency, to the new Department. When the Senate passes this bill and sends it to conference, for all purposes of amending that process in the Senate, it is over. When it goes to conference, whatever comes back from the conference between the two Houses--the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate--whatever comes back from that conference is it. We have one more--one more--chance, and that is in voting up or down on that conference report. When that conference report comes back to the Senate, it may not even look like the bill that passed the Senate. Ha, ha, ha. Now, Senators, you may have an entirely different breed of legislation on this bill when it comes back. It is there. You can vote it up or down. But, Senators, you will not be able to offer any amendments to that conference report. You can vote it down, you can vote it up, but you cannot change it. It may be virtually an entirely new proposition. Who knows what the conferees will agree to. Senators, you are having your last chance here when we vote, eventually, on this bill, if we do. So why, why, why should Senators just roll over and play dead, as it were; perhaps come to the floor, make a short speech--of 10 minutes, 15 minutes--in support of the bill, or a short speech in opposition to it? Why should Senators have to do that within the next week, let's say, or 2 weeks or 3 weeks? Why should Senators have to do that before a new Congress sits in January? Let me repeat, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Customs Service, the Coast Guard, other existing agencies that provide security to our country and to us--all of these agencies currently exist. The agencies have been working around the clock since the terrorist attacks last year. They were on the borders. They were patrolling U.S. waterways. Whether or not we create a new Department of Homeland Security in September, whether or not we create a Department of Homeland Security in October, whether or not we create a Department of Homeland Security in November, whether or not we create a Department of Homeland Security in December, these same agencies will continue to protect our homeland. Now, back to my amendment, and then, shortly, I will yield to the Senator for a question. What is the difference between the bill, then, and my amendment? I have already said as to the superstructure, as to the overall time period of 13 months, we are in lockstep, we are in lockstep with Mr. Lieberman and his committee. Now, here is the difference. Here comes the difference: Remember, this is all to be done within 13 months. Under the Lieberman committee proposal, once this bill that is before the Senate--once whatever the Senate passes, and it is concurred in by both Houses--whatever package is sent to the President, and he signs it, these things are going to take place. We are going to do it in the same period of time, but under the Byrd amendment, all of this chaotic happening is not going to occur at once. We are not going to pass the bill and send it to the President and say: Now, Mr. President, it's all yours. We're going to step off to the sideline. Congress is not going to have any more part in it. We have passed the bill. It sets up the new Department by legislation. It deals with 22 or 28 or 30--that many--agencies and offices. So here it is. Here is the bill. Here is our bill. It's yours. Under the Lieberman approach, it's yours. You have 13 months to do it in. Have at it. Good luck. Good luck, Mr. President. Here's the package. It's all yours. Can Senators imagine the chaos that will occur in trying to do all of this in a way that is other than systematic and orderly? My amendment provides an orderly process whereby on February 3--if the amendment is included in the act--on February 3, the Secretary of the new Department would send up his recommendations as to what agencies, what functions, what assignments, and so on, would need to be carried out to complete the flushing out of this skeleton, of putting into effect the establishment of the first directorate. Remember, I said that there were directorates in the Lieberman bill. There are Directorates in the Byrd amendment. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Defense, the new Department--which will be established by this law, if it becomes law-- the Secretary sends up his policies, his recommendations as to what agencies shall go into this new Directorate. That is on February 3. The recommendations of the Secretary will be sent to the committee in the Senate and the committee in the House that have jurisdiction over this subject matter. Mr. Lieberman's committee and Mr. Thompson's committee, their committee will still be in the mix. Their committee will still be front and center. Under my amendment, we are not going to say: OK, Mr. President, here it is. Have a good time. Good luck to you. Enjoy what you are doing. We are just going to move off to the side. Our committee is going to say: All right, we have a department. We are going to create this first directorate. We are going to have this new Secretary of Homeland Defense send up his policy recommendations to the House and Senate. They will be referred to the committees of jurisdiction, Mr. Lieberman's committee in the Senate, and his counterpart committee in the House. And those committees will take these policy recommendations that have been sent up by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and they will treat those as recommendations for a bill. They will look over those policies. They will debate them in the committee. They will report, ultimately, a bill which accepts the policies or which amends those policies. There will be, in my concept, an expedited procedure where that bill does not just go through the committee and lie there. But within 120 days after the policies have been sent to the Congress by the Secretary, the Secretary then, 120 days later, or on June 3, would be required to send up his recommendations for fleshing out the next two directorates which are named in Mr. Lieberman's bill also. The second proposal, there will be the Directorate of Intelligence and the Directorate of Critical Infrastructure Protection. Those directorates are named in the Lieberman bill. But we say, now, the first directorate that we will deal with will be the directorate of Border and Transportation Protection. All of these directorates are the same directorates as are provided for in the Lieberman bill. But we are saying that the first directorate to be decided upon and to be fleshed out will be the Directorate of Border Transportation and Protection. That is February 3. So there is 120 days for action to be taken in moving those agencies that are involved in the Directorate of Border and Transportation Protection into the Department. One hundred twenty days later, June 3, the Secretary will send up his recommendations for the Directorate of Intelligence and for the Directorate of Critical Infrastructure Protection; 120 days later, or October 1, the Secretary would send up his recommendations. And in each of these three phases, Mr. Lieberman's committee would take the recommendations of the Secretary. And in each, the Lieberman committee will report to the Senate a bill containing the recommendations of the Secretary. They may have been amended in the committee. They may have been modified somewhat. But Mr. Lieberman's committee would then report that and so would the House committee report that bill to their respective houses, and then the respective houses would take up the bill under expedited procedures, as I conceive it, expedited procedures. So there could be no filibuster. That committee can be discharged from the bill. If the committee cannot report the bill, the committee will be discharged, and it will come to the full body, in the House or in the Senate, whichever is having a problem. So we have three phases, each phase of 4 months. The first phase will take a look at that, the committee does, the Senate does. There you go, you have a directorate in being, one directorate, the agencies, the number of people that will be moved into that particular directorate, that will be going forward. When it comes time, on June 3, for us to take a look at the policies, at the recommendations sent by the Secretary ensuring the next two directorates, we will have the advantage of seeing the mistakes, seeing the errors, seeing the faults, seeing the shortcomings of the way these agencies were moved into the first directorate. So we profit by staying in the mix. Congress profits, and the people represented by the Congress profit. Perhaps I should not use the word ``profit.'' They ``benefit'' from the experience in fleshing out that first directorate. Then comes along the second and third directorates, every 4 months, and the same thing happens. And then the fourth and fifth directorates come along 4 months later, and the same thing obtains. The recommendations go to the two committees. They are reported out under expedited procedures. Each House would be required to go to the measure under expedited procedures, and it is passed. Congress stays in the mix. Why Congress? Because Congress is made up of the elected, directly elected, not sent here by any electoral college but directly elected by the people of Arkansas or the people of Minnesota or West Virginia. So Congress stays in the mix. It is phased. There is an orderly process of doing what Mr. Lieberman wants to do and over the same time period. So we come out at the end, 13 months; we have created this Department that Mr. Lieberman creates. We have created six of the seven directorates that Mr. Lieberman's bill creates, and we have set up the superstructure. We have appointed the same number of directors, the same number of Secretaries, the same number of under secretaries, the same number of assistant secretaries-- all of it. We take Mr. Lieberman's proposal, but we say we won't just turn it over to the administration the day after it is passed. We will go off fishing, if it is summertime, or perhaps we can go play golf. We will just quit. That is the responsibility of the administration, his bill says. Mine says, oh, no. No. That is the responsibility of Congress and the administration--Congress working with the administration; the administration working with Congress in an orderly process. The people in 28 agencies won't have to be moving their desks all at once. It will be some now; 4 months later, some more; 4 months later, the rest. What's wrong with that? That provides an orderly process. Madam President, I think at this point I have explained enough of what my amendment does to yield to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota for a question. We will have plenty of opportunity later to explain what my amendment does. I want people to go home this weekend to know what my amendment does. That is it in a nutshell. I don't claim to be a medicine man. I don't claim to be a magician. I don't say watch what is in my right hand and don't watch what the left hand is doing. It is there. This is it. Yesterday, included in the Congressional Record was a brief statement explaining the amendment. I also tried to explain it on the floor today. I have been up all night and the night before with my wife in the hospital. I sat right in her room all night, watching her and reading my Constitution again. It is a little hard to make things quite come together as one would like when one has lost sleep. I merely mention that so that everybody will know that I have tried to explain the purpose of my amendment, but not under the best conditions. I yield now to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota for a question only, retaining my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I do not expect to yield, except for questions. I have several thoughts with respect to the pending measure. I can speak at great length. Only the Lord can intervene and make that statement fall. But I don't expect to do that today. House Republicans yesterday criticized the majority leader and the managers of the bill, Senator Lieberman, for not moving quickly enough to pass legislation to create a new Homeland Security Department. They accuse the Senate Democratic leadership of endangering the country by not passing legislation. We are going to hear more and more of that. There is no excuse for not giving the people of this country a homeland security bill, said the Speaker of the House yesterday. Let me say again what the Speaker of the House yesterday said: There is no excuse for not giving the people of this country a homeland security bill. What a flimsy argument, with all due respect, and I have great respect for the Speaker. I know the rules of the Senate and the House. I am not going to go beyond that quotation in referring to what the Speaker of the House said. I am not going to go beyond that to in any way appear, in any way, and I do not now appear, even presume; I don't want anyone to presume or to assume or to interpret what I say as any personal criticism of the Speaker of the House of Representatives. But what a flimsy argument. We are going to hear that argument; we are going to hear it from other people. It will not be long in coming, if it has not already been expressed by others. But worse than flimsy is the kind of argument we ought not be making. It is an empty argument. It is shallow. That kind of argument cannot stand up under its own weight, that there is no excuse for not giving the people of this country a homeland security bill. Let us be clear about a few things. Neither the House bill nor the President's proposal would create any new agencies. They are proposing only to move existing agencies from one Department to another. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Customs Service, the Coast Guard, all of these agencies currently exist. They are operating. They are funded. And the people are out there working day and night. These agencies have been working around the clock since the terrorist attacks last year on September 11. They have been out there working. They were on the borders. They were patrolling the U.S. waterways last night, the night before, and the night before that, and in all of the nights that have occurred, beginning on September 11, and before. Whether or not we create a new Homeland Security Department, and regardless of when we do it, these same agencies will continue to protect our homeland. The funds are there. The funds are being used. The people are there on the job. So do not have any concern about that. They are not absent their protest and they are not empty handed. They are not empty handed. They are working. Now, we must be careful about how we create this Department. And I want to create this Department of Homeland Security; I want to create a Department of Homeland Security. But I am not one who wants to debate the bill on the Senate floor for 2 days and vote on it. That is what the House did, the other body. They have their own rules. I have been a Member, many years ago. I say ``many;'' many in the context of the ordinary lifetime of many years ago. They have their rules. I don't criticize that at all. They can operate fast. The House can operate quickly, they can operate fast, and so can the Senate, as we did last year when we passed an appropriations bill within 3 days of the fall of the towers, the Twin Towers. We passed an appropriations bill within 3 days, a bill appropriating $40 billion. The Senate can act fast, too. But thank God, the Senate has different rules from the rules of the other body. And that is no criticism of the rules of the other body. But why the hurry? Why pass a bill in 2 days? Why should the Senate not take a little time and discuss this? The people are out there. Our security people are at their posts. They have been funded. As a matter of fact, the Senate has passed bills coming out of the Appropriations Committee, chaired by me and with the ranking member, Mr. Ted Stevens, a former chairman of that committee, and all of the members acting unanimously--Republicans and Democrats alike. We have provided funds, more funds than the President has been willing to sign into law. We sought to provide $2.5 billion in a bill. All the President needed was to sign his name. That was all he needed. Two point five billion more would have been available--for what? For homeland security. And the President had 30 days in which to sign that measure into law. He refused to sign it into law. So who is in a hurry? The real threat to the American people is that by transferring 22 agencies and 122,000 employees to this new Department, all at once we will throw our homeland security efforts into a state of chaos and therefore make the country even more susceptible to a terrorist attack. What is more, if we are not careful about how we create this Department and the authorities that we grant to this new Department with regard to its intelligence and law enforcement powers, we could do irreparable harm to the constitutional liberties of the American people. For this reason, 26 leaders of nationally prominent conservative organizations have urged the Senate to exercise--and I use quotes-- ``restraint, caution, and deeper scrutiny before hastily granting unnecessary powers to a homeland security bureaucracy.'' Let me say that again: 26 leaders of nationally prominent conservative organizations have urged the Senate to exercise ``restraint, caution, and deeper scrutiny before hastily granting unnecessary powers to a homeland security bureaucracy.'' I say to those who would say there is no excuse for not giving the people of this country a homeland security bill: Don't push this Senate. Don't push it. The Senate will act in due time. Don't push this Senate. Back off. Don't push this Congress as a whole into unwise and hasty decisions that would make this country even more vulnerable to another terrorist attack. That attack can happen right now, later today, tonight. Why should we hurry in acting on this particular measure? The people are out there. The people in the agencies, the Customs, the Coast Guard, the Naturalization and Immigration Service, at the ports of entry into this country, at the river ports, at the seaports, food inspectors, the health officials, the firemen, the policemen--they have been there. We have done our part, up to this point, by funding those agencies that provide security to the country, to the nuclear facilities, along the border. We have funded them. We have provided more funds than the President himself has been willing to sign a bill for. They have been there. He had days to sign that bill, but he didn't do it. Now the hue and cry is: Pass this bill, the homeland security bill. The House of Representatives passed it in 2 days. That is all right; their rules will allow them to do that. But I say to the leadership in the House, and to the leadership down at the other end of this avenue: Don't push the Senate. Don't push the Congress into unwise and hasty decisions that would make this country more vulnerable to another terrorist attack. Don't push the American people. Don't push the American people, I say, as I look through those electronic eyes, the lenses there. Don't push those people into handing over their civil liberties. Now, pay attention. Not much attention has been paid thus far to my expression of concerns about this hasty action on this legislation. But don't push the American people into handing over their civil liberties in the name of homeland security. And some debate on this bill--when I say this bill, the House bill or the Lieberman substitute--debate will surface, will open the eyes of the American people and the eyes of Senators, to the threat of eroding the liberties of the American people. Don't risk eroding the liberties of the American people. It doesn't sound like passing a homeland security bill would do all that, does it? It has an innocent sounding name, a good name. But let's take a look at the bill. Read closely the bill. Don't push the American people into handing over their civil liberties in the name of homeland security. Everybody understands when our Nation is put on a wartime footing, we have to put certain limits on ourselves. But take a look at this bill. Take a look at the bill. Don't risk eroding the liberties of the American people and lead the public to believe this proposal is a panacea for homeland defense. That is what the administration is pressing for. That is what those who are pressing the Senate are pressing for when they argue that the Senate is endangering the security of the American people by not quickly passing the President's proposal. I believe that the administration and others who take that position have lost sight of the real goal here, which is not a Homeland Security Department but a more secure homeland. The President and his administration seem more concerned with scoring a political victory, maybe, than whether a Homeland Security Department will actually work and will actually protect the American people from another terrorist attack. My interpretation of what is being done is--I have to say that I can be wrong, too. Perhaps I am putting the wrong interpretation on it. Perhaps the President is not more concerned with scoring a political victory than whether the Homeland Security Department will actually protect the American people from another terrorist attack. I don't want to read it that way. I don't want to misinterpret it. I don't want to see the President as doing that, or feeling that way about it. I don't want to even assume that is his motivation. But that is the motivation of some. That is the motivation of some. Forty-one Senators opposed the Thompson amendment to strike titles II and III from the Lieberman substitute. Yet there is only one Senator on the floor defending those titles. I did not draft the language. Yet I am the only one fighting for it. I am the only one fighting at the moment to retain titles II and III of the bill. I will have something to say about those titles at some point. When I say titles II and III, I am talking about the Lieberman proposal. Let me briefly explain what my amendment does so those who are listening will understand that my amendment is not seriatim to the bill that has been introduced by Senator Lieberman. My amendment only goes to title I of that bill. There are 24 titles to the bill. My amendment only goes to title I of Mr. Lieberman's bill. I am not yet addressing the House bill. That is far worse. The House bill is really a poison pill. Mr. Lieberman's bill has 24 titles listed. My amendment only goes to title I. Mr. Lieberman's proposal has encompassed in the bill that was reported by the committee a Department of Homeland Security. I am for that. My amendment does not do otherwise in support of a Department of Homeland Security. The Lieberman proposal provides for a Secretary. My amendment provides for a Secretary. The Lieberman proposal provides for a Deputy Secretary. My amendment provides for a Deputy Secretary. The Lieberman proposal provides for seven Under Secretaries. My proposal provides for seven Under Secretaries. The Lieberman proposal provides for five Assistant Secretaries in title I. My amendment provides for five Assistant Secretaries in title I. The Lieberman proposal proposes six directorates. My proposal provides for six directorates in title I. There is another directorate provided for in title XI. I don't touch that at the moment. My amendment does not touch that. We are only talking about title I in my amendment. Thus far, the same superstructure that is provided for by Mr. Lieberman is provided by the amendment which I have introduced--the same thing; no change; nothing different about that. The Lieberman proposal provides for a huge transaction here, which Mr. Lieberman has told me involves 28 agencies and offices. We have heard the figure 22 bandied around here. I have seen those all over the press. I accepted that figure for a while, until I asked Mr. Lieberman how many agencies are we really talking about. He said: I have counted them, and I count 28 agencies and offices, and 170,000 Federal workers being transferred to this Department. I don't say anything criticizing Mr. Lieberman's bill. I am comparing my amendment in certain respects with the bill which was reported by the Senate committee which Mr. Lieberman chairs and of which Mr. Thompson is ranking member. That bill provides for all this huge transaction--all of this movement of people, all of this shifting around of people in the agencies, or among the agencies in which they are presently working. And it provides for all this to be done--for these agencies to be shifted into the new Department. Their letterheads will probably change. Their telephone numbers will probably change. The offices in which they serve today may or may not change. They may be moved up Pennsylvania Avenue to a new place. They may have to move their desks and their telephones and their computer systems. Their culture will change. They may not have the same associates. They may not be located in the same location. Their telephone numbers may be changed. Their missions may be changed. Their assignments may be changed. Their objectives, overall, may be changed. We have seen the objectives of the FBI, for example, change since the September 11 attacks.

Robert Byrd

Speeches

Manage analytics