Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Then, yes, always.

Mr. BYRD. Is it a question the Senator thinks I might be able to answer?

Mr. BYRD. And I have just read three and a half pages. I am a slow reader. I had a feeling that Senators just wanted me to keep on. They don't want to come over and hear this. I am trying to get their attention. Three and a half pages in 2 hours 15 minutes. Mr. President, while I am speaking, it reminds me of Cicero, who was asked the question: ``Which of Demosthenes' speeches do you like best?'' Cicero answered: ``The longest.'' That is how good Demosthenes was.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my dear friend, the distinguished junior Senator from Connecticut, and the standard bearer for the Democratic Party in the last election, and a man whom I greatly respect for other reasons. He and I have many kindred feelings when it comes to the discussion of religion. I admire him for many, many things in that regard. If we wanted to get into the discussion of the cosmological principles that guide the operation of this universe, and if we wanted to talk about Charles Darwin, that great English naturalist and his theory of survival of the fittest, the Senator and I have a lot of kindred thoughts. I understand Senator Graham. He is a former Governor. There is nothing wrong with being a former Governor. But Governors have a way of looking at things a little differently than those lowly peons like myself who served in the House of Delegates and the State Senate of West Virginia. I can understand how a Governor sees things--even at the Federal level--because sometimes they see things through the lens of their experiences as Governor dealing with State matters and State constitutions. I can understand that. I wish I had been a Governor of the State of West Virginia at some point. I would like to have that additional experience. But I cannot yield without more than just a clash of sword against a shield, even to Senator Graham. I have great respect for him, but he is wrong in this instance. When he gets to the floor, I will tell him I said that. I say that out of respect to him. We can all disagree. I sometimes try to remember that I can be wrong, and often am. But this is wrong. I would be happy to debate this with Senator Graham until the cows come home, if he wishes. He feels strongly, as Senator Lieberman says. I take that exactly the way Senator Lieberman says it. Senator Graham feels strongly. Well, so do I. I am going to see that there is some debate on this matter before we vote on it. I am not as young as I once was. I once spoke 14 hours--or something like 14 hours--on this floor. I once sat in that chair for 22 hours. I sat in the chair 22 hours, and I would still have been setting in it had Richard Nixon, the Vice President, not come to the Senate Chamber. He naturally had the right to the gavel. I had been a Senator a while, but I had not been a Senator a long time. But I knew who the President of the Senate was. Incidentally, the President of the Senate can't address the Senate without unanimous consent of the Senate. I noticed the Vice President the other day in New York. I saw what was going on on television. I saw that he spoke at that meeting in New York when the two Houses convened up there. Of course, when they first convened in New York, John Adams was Vice President, and he talked at length. He was quite a gregarious person in that respect, somewhat unlike the current Vice President. He is not gregarious, and neither am I, for that matter. But the Vice President doesn't speak these days--I have an audience of one here, but even one individual is of great importance. So I want my friend from Connecticut to hear what I had to say here, not that it will be read even as a footnote. But at this time, the Vice President cannot address the Senate except by unanimous consent of the Senate. At the time of the beginning of the Republic, the Vice President was John Adams. And he was one who would speak at the drop of a hat. He spoke quite at length. That is a little bit besides the point here, but I just have to say that I cannot--I suppose the Senator will win over my objection because not many people here seem to be paying much attention to what is being said at the moment. I think they take for granted it is a bill like other bills that come here that have come through the committee, and: ``I am going to vote with my party,'' or ``I am going to vote against the party,'' or whatever. But I have been trying to get their attention. And if it had not been for my objections, this bill would have probably been passed already. But some attention, at least, is being paid to it now. And I hope that more attention will be paid to it. On the business of having the Director of Homeland Security confirmed, Senator Stevens and I had our experience--and it was not a very happy experience--with this administration when it came to the hearings that both Senator Stevens and I thought we ought to have on appropriations. That was the supplemental appropriations bill, I believe. That was in the very early part of this year. And at that point the memories of September 11 of last year were almost as vivid-- in January and February of this year--as they were the day after the event. But Senator Stevens and I joined in asking Governor Ridge to come up before our Appropriations Committee and testify on the budget for homeland security. Oh, he didn't want to come up. He was just a staff person at the White House. I believe I saw the President, Mr. Bush, on television, on one occasion, saying: He doesn't have to go up there. He doesn't have to go. He's a staff person. And so I said, at the time, probably in a low voice: Well, technically speaking, the President has a point. The person, Mr. Ridge, is on the President's staff. So far so good. But Mr. Ridge is far different from the ordinary staff person. And he is far different from the ordinary adviser to the President. The President has lots of advisers. He has the Secretaries of all the Cabinets. They are his advisers. And a confirmed Director of the Office of Homeland Security can still be an adviser to the President. He still would be, and he certainly would carry more weight than he carries as an adviser incognito. Those are my words. But keep in mind that this so-called staff person, this person on the President's staff, is running all over the country speaking to chambers of commerce, going down to Mexico and meeting with the authorities there, going up to Canada, meeting with the authorities there. Ordinary staff people do not do that. This is more than just an ordinary staff person. This is more than just an ordinary adviser to the President. And he was quite willing to come up and ``brief'' Members of Congress. Well, that doesn't fill the bill as far as I am concerned. I am chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I don't know how long I will be chairman, but as long as I am chairman of the Appropriations Committee, that doesn't fill the bill. We have briefings, if we want them. But when we want to spread the Record for the American people to see, and for the American people to hear what is said by witnesses and by Senators who are asking questions, it should be done in formal hearings--hearings, not briefings behind closed doors. I think there was some offer, even, to have a briefing with the doors open, but that still does not--still does not--meet the bill. Here is a committee of the Congress, the Appropriations Committee, created in 1867, doing its work, doing its duty, as we have always done it. When we have had Republican chairmen of the committee and when we have had Democratic chairmen of the committee, the committee has always had hearings. And they have been public hearings. If we want closed hearings, we can vote to have a closed hearing. And then we might vote to have the Record cleaned up a little bit and made public. But ordinarily when we are hearing testimony on the budget, the Federal budget--the people's money, and the way the taxpayers' money is to be spent--the taxpayers are entitled to hear that. They are entitled to hear what the administration person says. What was it that had to be secret? There was nothing. There was nothing about the testimony that he would give on these budget matters, on the appropriations for the next year--nothing--that it needed to be secret. If we had had briefings, they would not have been kept secret. Ten minutes later, those who would be in the briefings would go out and tell what was said because it was not classified. That was a sham. That was a charade on the part of the administration to try to make it appear that the administration was trying to be reasonable. Yes, they would let Mr. Ridge come up and brief Members. Why, my foot. Have him come up and brief Members of the Congress? Why, that is laughable. When I first came to this Congress, John Taber of New York was chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Would John Taber have agreed to have an administration person in the position that Tom Ridge is in--I am talking about John Taber, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee--would John Taber have agreed to have the administration witness come up and just give the Appropriations Committee a briefing? Heavens, no. And so I feel the same way about it. Why should the Appropriations Committee of the Senate, after 135 years--after 135 years--through all administrations, Republican and Democrat--settle for having a briefing, letting the administration's point man on homeland security just come up and give a briefing? Why, the American people are entitled to more than that. The American people are entitled to more than that. That is trivializing the appropriations process. No, I would not agree to that. That is what we are about to do here. We are about to say, yes, we will have a Secretary of the Department. I am for a Department of Homeland Security. And in my amendment, I certainly subscribe to Senator Lieberman's committee proposal in having a Department, having a Secretary of the Department. I go along with that. Yes, let's have a Secretary. But in my amendment, I am still proceeding under the understanding that the Director of Homeland Security within the White House will also be confirmed. In an appropriations bill which Senator Stevens and I brought to the floor several months ago, we had language requiring the confirmation of the Director of Homeland Security. It was in the appropriations bill. We tried and we tried--Senator Stevens and I tried more than once--to have the Director of Homeland Security come before the Appropriations Committee in the Senate and testify. I assured those from the administration who talked with me about that, we were not interested in knowing anything about Mr. Ridge's secret conversations or private conversations with the President; we were not interested in any of that stuff. We are not interested in that Dick Tracy stuff. We only want to know the facts concerning the appropriations. We are not going to ask him questions like that. It is not going to be classified. If Mr. Ridge wants the committee to hear him in secret, we will vote on that in the committee. And if the committee wants to close the door for an hour to hear what he has to say that is so secretive and so demands secrecy, we will vote on that. But we are not interested in embarrassing Mr. Ridge. We are not interested in embarrassing Mr. Bush. We only want the facts concerning the moneys that are going to be needed for homeland security. No, they wouldn't let him come up. The administration had its feet in concrete and was determined not to let Mr. Ridge come up and testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee. The President said he was going to change the tone in Washington. Well, as far as I was concerned, that was not changing the tone in the right direction. That was a sour note, and I am sorry the administration ever took that position. But here we are today and the administration still doesn't want it. Why? Why did they have their feet in concrete a few months ago with respect to Governor Ridge? We could have gotten off on a much better footing if Mr. Bush had said: Go on up there and answer their questions. If they are asking questions on dollars and cents, the taxpayers' money, the appropriations needs, go on up there and answer those questions. It would have struck a much sweeter note. But it kind of, in a way, poisoned the well. So that wasn't changing the tone for the better. That made it worse. And to this day, the administration doesn't want that position to be one that requires confirmation by the Senate. Here we are, the loyal opposition when it comes to this bill, I guess, saying: We think that position ought to be confirmed. If we are going to create it, it is going to be confirmed. That is the way the Senate ought to look at this. If there were a Democrat in the White House, I would say the same thing. It should be the Senate's will. Now, the President can veto the bill. He can do that if he wants. He can do that. I believe it is the seventh section of article I of the Constitution which lays out the veto power of the President--the seventh section, article I.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. There are monarchists--not anarchists--in the Congress, I will admit.

Mr. BYRD. And the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, for whom I have tons and tons and tons of respect, is opposed and he has offered an amendment now, as I understand it, that would run up the white flag. I will use my own words. I am sure the offeror of the amendment wouldn't use those terms, but in my words, would run up the white flag insofar as confirmation, required confirmation of the Homeland Security Director by the Senate is concerned. I would like to have the Senator's response. He is entitled to respond. I ask unanimous consent that I may retain the floor.

Mr. BYRD. When?

Mr. BYRD. Very well. While I am speaking, I hope my staff will bring some of the materials I have prepared to use. I am not going to go along with an immediate vote on this, I can tell Senators that. I am sorry I had to get to the floor ahead of Mr. Thompson--I saw him standing--but I was concerned. I will yield to the Senator if he has an amendment to beat this amendment, but I am not yielding the floor now.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of the bill. I strongly disagree with those who believe the Director within the White House need not be confirmed. I am very opposed to that idea. I am ready to speak at some length on this. Do I have the floor?

Mr. BYRD. I have not had an opportunity to study this amendment. I did hear, though, the distinguished manager of the bill say something to the effect that this amendment would eliminate the requirement for Senate confirmation of the--is it the Director of Homeland Security? I ask that I retain the right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. How?

Mr. BYRD. Yes, that is perfectly OK.

Mr. BYRD. I don't know about the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.

Mr. BYRD. My lands, that is a lot of time. Was it 2 hours and a half?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, going back to Mr. Dean's column--as I say, he wrote it back in April of this year--he expressed concerns about entrusting responsibilities, such as coordinating homeland security, to a White House aide with no statutory authority. John Dean raised a number of important questions which I will now ask the Senate. I quote John Dean: Would the departments and agencies fall into line when a senior White House aide so directed them? How about it? We are talking about just an aide. He has not been confirmed by the Senate. How about the Secretaries of the Departments who have been confirmed, who come before the Congress, who come before congressional committees and answer questions and give testimony and are witnesses? Would those senior White House aides fall into line when this upstart, who has not been confirmed by anybody, except the President appointed him to this position--he is a White House aide--are those Department heads going to stand and salute when Tom Ridge tells them to fall into line? How about that? What authority does he have? Does he have authority over these people, these men and women who are in Cabinet positions, who have stood before the bar of the Senate and been confirmed to their positions? Would the Cabinet officers follow orders from anyone other than the President himself? Could a senior White House aide resolve long-time department rivalries? How about that? We know there have always been Department rivalries going back to the early days of this Republic. Would this senior White House aide, who does not have to come before Congress and answer questions about his own budget, would these Department heads, these Cabinet officers who do come before the Congress and they have been confirmed by Congress--they come here about their budgets--would they be brought into line by this upstart, this fellow who is here? I know he is here by the grace of the President, but could a senior White House aide resolve long-time Department rivalries such as those between the CIA and the FBI? We have heard about that, haven't we? Can this White House aide crack the whip, and these heads of agencies, such as the CIA and FBI, will they jump to attention, salute, and say, yes, sir; yes, sir; no, sir; yes, sir? Could the senior White House aide resolve long-time Department rivalries like those between the CIA and the FBI, or Treasury and Justice, law enforcement responsibilities? Could this White House aide get the Border Patrol, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and Customs operating like they all belong in the same Government? What authority does he have? He is just the President's man; that is it. He does not have any statutory authority. He is not confirmed by the Senate. How would you feel, Mr. President, if you were a Cabinet officer in this administration, and you had someone who was not a Cabinet officer, who had not been confirmed by the Senate, a new man on the job, a new office on the street; it is a brandnew office. It is a new office, what will be a new Department. But this fellow down here who really runs things does not have to go up before Congress. Here I am, a poor old Cabinet officer, and I lie awake at night worrying about how I will answer these questions when I am called up before that committee tomorrow and all those klieg lights will be on me, and they will ask me questions about money, how I have been spending it all. Here I have to go up there tomorrow. This man does not have to go up. All he has to do is go up to the ``Commander in Chief.'' By the way, the Commander in Chief--let me read from this book so people will know this is bona fide. If I had to, I could say it from memory. Here is the Commander in Chief. He is not the Commander in Chief of industry. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States. . . . But he is not the Commander in Chief of industry. He is not the Commander in Chief of the Congress. But here I am, a Cabinet officer, and I have to go up there and listen to those people up there. I have to go up there and sit at a table, way past the lunch hour, and listen to those Senators, be criticized by them. And here is this man. He is not confirmed by anybody. He just stands at the Commander in Chief's desk and salutes and says: Yes, sir; no, sir; not my will but thine be done. I do not believe a man or a woman who is thrust into that kind of a position is going to relish being in that position because he does not have any statutory authority behind him. It would seem to me a person in that position would want statutory authority behind him; get the statute behind him. He would want to be confirmed. Yes, he then has the authority, the authority of the legislative branch, as well as his own appointment by the Chief Executive, behind him. The next question: Could an aide, such as the homeland security director, get the Border Patrol, Immigration and Naturalization Service, and Customs operating like they all belong in the same Government? I have been quoting Mr. John Dean. Mr. President, Mr. Dean concluded that homeland security is too important an issue for a Nixon-style executive leadership. Here is a man who was in the Nixon administration, the counsel to President Nixon, John Dean. Mr. Dean concluded that homeland security was too important an issue for a Nixon-style executive leadership and that congressional oversight and the collective wisdom of Congress are essential in dealing with a threat of such magnitude. I agree. Why do we have to fuss and fume and fight over whether or not this person should be confirmed? The President ought to say: Okay, let's get on with it; let's confirm him. I will name the person, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, he will serve. What is wrong with that? That has been the case for over 200 years. Some Presidents have suffered defeat when it came to their nominees. I can think of John Tyler, especially when he was fuming and fussing around with the Whig leaders in the Congress. What is so bad about that? After all, I would welcome that. Let him be confirmed by the Senators. That will give him more authority. It makes him more bona fide in the eyes of the people. He would stand before the American people with more authority. What is so bad about that? That is not anything damaging to the President. Requiring a person to be confirmed is not demeaning to the President. So why should we Democrats be willing to roll over and play dead on it? They say: Oh, they have the votes on the other side. Well, that is all right. Let's have a vote at some point; let's not just say roll over and play dead. It is far more important for us to stand for what we can look back on 10 years from now and say we did the right thing, we were right, than just for a day to say, well, we will avoid this fight, they have the votes, and let's go on. That is not enough. Let us make the case for confirmation, and if we go down to defeat, the record will be there. And later, when the pages of history are turned one by one and we can then look back on the mistakes that may have flowed from that very act of having an individual in that position, not confirmed by the Senate of the United States, we will know that we stood for the right; we stood for what was best for our children and grandchildren. This job is too important to be left to Tom Ridge alone. I do not say that with any disrespect to Tom Ridge. I could not speak of him with disrespect if I wanted to. The man was a Governor; he was a Member of the House of Representatives in earlier days. He is a respectable man. So I do not speak of him as a person; I speak of him as an officer who will be in a key position for the first time in over 200 years, an untried position, an untried office, in times that are trying but not yet tried really. This job is too important. So if you want to beat me, beat me. Go ahead. Roll over me. I will not get on your wagon. This is a principle, and I think a lot of people, if they listen to me and hear what is being said and if they will study this bill, sooner or later they are going to come around to my viewpoint. I think the American people, if they heard it, would say: Senator, you are right; this position is too important to be left to Tom Ridge alone, too important to be left to a President to appoint, and that ends it. I know the President is elected, but an electoral college sends him here, an electoral college sends Vice President Cheney here, but no electoral college sends me here. The Senator from the great State of Minnesota, who is now presiding--by the way, one of his ancestors was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He signed from the State of New Jersey. His name was Jonathan Dayton, and Senator Dayton of Minnesota today sits in the chair. So we were sent here by the people. We cannot rely on a confidential adviser to the President to orchestrate Federal homeland security policy unilaterally and in secret. What is going on here? What is this all about? Why the stiff jaws down at the other end of the avenue against having this man come up and testify? He knows the answers. That is why Senator Ted Stevens and I wanted him up before the Appropriations Committee--because he knows the answers. He is the President's point man on homeland security. That is the way it will be. I do not mean to drag over the old ashes all the time, but that is the same way it will be if the Congress puts its rubber stamp on this legislation and goes forward with the administration's desire of being able to appoint this adviser to the President in this very untried, really untested up until the last 8 or 10 or 12 months, position. That man has not been confirmed by the Senate. He has not answered questions for his confirmation, does not have to go up to the Senate and the House and answer questions before the Appropriations Committees. He does not have to answer questions from any other committees. He is the President's man. Have you read about all the King's men? Well, this is not quite a monarchy yet, although I am afraid there are some Members of both Houses, I am sorry to say, who, by my perceptions at least, would be monarchists. They will do anything the President says should be done, and they will do it in the name of his being the Commander in Chief. Well, the Commander in Chief of what? The Army and the Navy and the militia when it is called into service. But suppose Congress does not call the militia into service? That is done by statute. It has been on the statute books a long time. The Congress calls the Guard into service. It passes the laws. Who creates the Navy and the Army? Look in article I, section 8, and you will find out who. Congress shall have power. Who provides the money to keep these agencies running? Our English forbears said: We will appropriate money for an army, but just for a year at a time. In our Constitution, we took a leaflet out of our English forbears at the time and said 2 years at a time, not more than 2 years. This Constitution still governs. I have not heard much about it in recent days. I listened last Sunday to all the talking heads and everybody on certain programs because I saw in the newspaper that some pretty important people were going to be on television. I saw that the Vice President was going to be on, Secretary of State Powell was going to be on, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was going to be on, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was going to be on. I thought I had better listen to all of these people. So I did. I listened to them. I listened to every one of them. Not once, and not once in all of the debate I have been hearing around here and downtown and at the U.N. and everywhere else, not once have I ever heard the Constitution of the United States mentioned. Now, it may have been on one of those Sunday programs. I may have missed it somehow, but not once did I hear the word ``Constitution'' mentioned. These smart lawyers down at the White House--and they are smart; I studied law, never with any intention of being a lawyer. I probably wouldn't have been a good one anyhow. But in any event, these smart lawyers down at the White House say the President has legal authority to unilaterally deliver an unprovoked attack against Iraq as a sovereign State. I have as much fear and as much concern and as much contempt for Saddam Hussein as does any other man or woman. But it takes more than just legal authority. These smart lawyers can line up on either side. You can hire a good lawyer on either side. You can hire a good lawyer to take this side of the case over here or you can hire that same good lawyer for this side of the case. A smart lawyer can come in with an almost impenetrable case. But that is not the point. The Constitution is there. The Constitution is there. I hold a copy of that Constitution in my hand. It is, other than the Bible, my guiding light, this Constitution. Constitutional scholars in this land agree with me. Just legal authority is not enough. It is the Constitution. It is there. It is always there morning, noon, afternoon, night. The Constitution is always there. But not once, not once was this Constitution mentioned on any of the networks that I listened to last Sunday in the discussions about a possible war into which this country was being--at least in some quarters--stampeded into. We were going to war. We were going to be in a war. Our collective minds at the head of Mount Olympus had been made up already. The President had the legal authority. Legal authority, my foot. It is the Constitution we are talking about. The Constitution says the Congress shall have power to declare war. I know that only five wars have been declared, but that Constitution is still there. And there are at least six other wars to which statutes have been passed by Congress, dependent upon as authority. What has happened to us all when we just go forward blindly without looking to the left or the right, saying we will go to war. We will change this regime. We will do it, I will do it, or it will be done. How about those 535 Members who sit up there on Jenkins Hill? How about them? They have certificates showing that they were duly elected by the people--not by an electoral college but they were sent here by the people. Are we going to disregard them? And these people who sit up here on Jenkins Hill ought to read this Constitution again. Many of them have, I am sure. But let us not disregard this Constitution. The President has legal authority to do this and do that. When it comes to war, this Constitution says the Congress shall declare war. We can talk a long time about this subject, too, and probably will. As far as I am concerned, we will, if the Lord lets me live. Legal authority: We have an organic law that says Congress shall declare war. I know the President has inherent authority and that it comes from this Constitution, too--inherent authority to act to repel a sudden attack upon this country or upon its military forces. He may not have time to talk with Congress. He may not have time to get a declaration of war from Congress. He may not have time to get an authorizing measure from Congress. He may have to act. In that case, this Constitution gives him that inherent authority. We are talking about an unprovoked attack by this country, an unprovoked attack upon a sovereign state. It does not make any difference if we do not like the person who is the head of that State or who is running it or who is a dictator, of course. The fact we do not like him is not enough. Congress shall have the power to declare war. We are going to talk about that a while. I noticed a column in one of the great newspapers this morning which virtually had our minds made up for us. We are just going to go. We are going to do this. Incidentally, I will have more to say on that subject at another time. This job we are talking about is too important to be left to Tom Ridge alone. It is too important to be left to Tom or Dick or Harry alone. We cannot rely on a confidential adviser to the President to orchestrate Federal homeland security policy unilaterally and in secret--in secret. This administration wants to act in secret too much. The Government's fight against terrorism is bigger than a Department of Homeland Security. Isn't it? They want to fight over this little fellow--he is not just a little fellow once he is down there behind that desk--but they want to wage a big fight against terrorism, and it is a fight that is bigger than the Department of Homeland Security and it is too big for Tom Ridge or any other Tom, Dick, or Harry. He needs the authority of the legislative branch behind him. In accordance with the Constitution, the President shall appoint thus and so by and with the consent of the President. His position ought to be made subject to the confirmation of the Senate. My Appropriations Committee brought an appropriations bill to the floor. This bill was the fiscal year 2002 supplemental that was brought before the Senate in the early part of the year, sometime around June or July. In that bill, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, made up of 29 Senators, 15 Democrats and 14 Republicans, that bill had a provision that provided that the Director of Homeland Security must be someone confirmed by the Senate of the United States. That was in the bill. It was brought here before this body, and it passed the Senate by a huge margin. I think there were more than 70 votes cast for that appropriations bill. That provision was in it. Senators knew it was in it because we brought it up in the Appropriations Committee of the Senate. It was there. There was never any attempt to strike it. There was no attempt to amend it. In that provision all Senators knew, they had their eyes open, they didn't have blinders on, and it wasn't something done in secret. It was right there in the bill, and we had it in the Senate here, everybody knew about it, and not one, not a peep did we hear against that provision here in the Senate. It passed the Senate and went to conference. Then the administration saw the handwriting on the wall. They must have been reading about Belshazzar in the Book of Daniel. Belshazzar had a great party, a great dinner thrown. And he had his soothsayers and his lords and his highfalutin officers and all. Belshazzar, King. He was having all this mirth. He invited a thousand of his lords. This was a great function there on the banks of the Euphrates River. All the mirth was going on. Everybody was laughing, drinking, toasting, feasting. And all at once, there, over near the candlestick, appeared a man's hand, and that man's hand wrote something on the wall near the candlestick. And Belshazzar, the great King, wondered what it was, and he became obsessed with fear, and his knees buckled, and his hand trembled, and he brought forth his magicians, his medicine men, and his soothsayers, and he asked them: What is that saying? What are those words over there? And somebody said: Well, we can't answer this. We don't know what those words are. But there is a man, a young man, who can interpret these words for you, O King, and his name is Daniel. He is in prison. I believe he was still in prison. They said: This young man can interpret these words. The King said: Bring him to me. And the King said to Daniel--I hope I am not getting two of my Biblical stories crossed up. It is late in the day. I hadn't counted on saying this. But I believe the King promised Daniel that he would have half the kingdom if he could interpret this dream. He would be clothed in the richest of garb and be made ruler of half the kingdom. Anyhow, Daniel said: These are the words, O King:

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, time being of the essence and realizing Senators want to get out of here and go home and how badly they want to get rid of the pending amendment, I will try to move on a little faster. My thanks to the pages for brining me a lectern. Mr. President, I have heard the concerns of some of my colleagues about establishing a statutory office within the Executive Office of the President with a Director confirmed by the Senate. I have heard the arguments that Congress would be intruding upon the President's right to receive confidential advice and it would tie his hands with regard to the internal management of the White House. These arguments misrepresent the realities of coordinating the executive branch and the management challenges it will involve, even after this new Department is up and running. The point has been made many times during the crafting of this legislation that the functions involved in homeland security are scattered throughout the Federal Government. That is an important point. Let me state it again: The point has been made many times during the crafting of this bill that the functions involved in homeland security are scattered throughout the Federal Government. That is not like the State Department. It is certainly not like the Defense Department. We are talking about a Department with functions scattered throughout the Federal Government, the functions involved in homeland security. That does not stop just at the water's edge. It goes on to the other side of the river. Many of those functions will not be transferred into the Department by this legislation. The legislation before the Senate today and which the Senate will vote on--I suppose, eventually, if this legislation is passed--creates a Department of Homeland Security. I am for creating a Department of Homeland Security, but the bill creating a Department of Homeland Security is not the end. That is not the alpha and the omega. That is not the end-all. We really will not have done our work. We will have only begun. Many of those functions, I say again, will not be transferred into the Department by this legislation. That is why I say we ought to stop, look, and listen to what we are doing. The administration would like Congress to pass just a mere piece of paper, as it were, handing the Department of Homeland Security over to the administration, saying here, Mr. President, here it is. It is yours, lock, stock, and barrel. Take it. We are out of it. We will stand on the sidelines. That is what we would do if we were to pass the legislation supported by the White House. If we were to pass the legislation that has been sent to us from the House, we would be doing just that. We would be passing a bill creating a Department of Homeland Security in the Lieberman bill, legislation that would say: A Department is created. Here it is, Mr. President. It is yours. Take it. Do what you want with it. You have the next 13 months in which to implement this legislation. It is yours. I am not in favor of doing that. I am in favor of creating a Department of Homeland Security, but I am not in favor of Congress doing that and then walking away and saying: It is yours, Mr. President; for the next 13 months we will go to the sidelines. I am not in favor of that. I don't know why some Senators seem not to be exercised about it, but my blood pressure has gone up a little bit about the very idea of handing this over to the President and to this administration and saying: Here it is. It is yours. That legislation, when we send it to the President, will not be all; we will have created, under Mr. Lieberman's bill, we will have created a Department, we will have created six directorates, we will have created the superstructure of a Deputy Secretary, six Under Secretaries, five Assistant Secretaries, and so on. That is OK with me. Let's create that superstructure. That is fine. But when it comes to transferring the agencies into that Department, how many agencies are there? Some say 22. Some say 28. Some say 30. How many agencies are there? What agencies are they? By what criteria were those agencies selected? Who said that this agency ought to go in but not that one? And why should this agency go there and not that one? Why should that one go in? Why not this one? So all that is going to be left up to the administration. We are going to leave it up to the administration as to the agencies that will go in, as to their functions, as to their objectives, as to their assignments. We are just going to turn it all over--lock, stock, and barrel--to the administration. That is the way it would be under the administration plan. That is the way it would be under the House plan. That is the way it would be under the Lieberman plan. I am trying to improve the Lieberman bill. I am saying, OK, let's do the superstructure. Let's have a Secretary. Let's have a Department of Homeland Security. Let's have a Secretary. Let's have a Deputy Secretary. Let's have six directorates, as Mr. Lieberman proposes. Let's have five Assistant Secretaries. I am in favor of that. That is all in title I. But I am saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not go too fast now. Let's create this over a 13-month period. Let's have the work done under a 13-month period, as the Lieberman bill would do. Let's create all this. Let's create the superstructure. Let's have it completed in 13 months, as Mr. Lieberman would do. He would have the Department and the superstructure and the agencies, their functions, and everything within 13 months, beginning with 30 days after the bill is enacted into law. Then there would be 12 months in what is called a transition period. Mr. Lieberman would have that. I would have that, too. But I would say, let's wait a little bit. Let's slow down a little bit. Let's not just turn this over to the administration and let them have it and we walk away. When I say ``we,'' I mean the Congress, the people's representatives. I am saying Congress should stay front and center in the mix. Let's have, say, one of the directorates go forward beginning on February 3. There are six directorates. One is in title XI. I don't touch title XI. That deals with immigration. I don't touch that, certainly not at this point. But for the other directorates, I would say, OK, on February 3 we will create one directorate and, Mr. Secretary, you send up to the Congress your proposal as to how we flesh out that directorate, as to what agencies go into that directorate--what agencies. Of course, that directorate is going to deal with border and transportation security. Mr. Lieberman and his committee and Mr. Thompson have created six directorates. One of them is Border and Transportation Security. My amendment would say, OK, let's take border and transportation security in that first directorate, and, Mr. Secretary, you send up your proposals for transferring agencies into that directorate to make it work. You have 120 days to do that--that is 4 months. That is February 3 that we start, because that is the day the President sends up his budget. Then we say, 120 days later--4 months later--Mr. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, you send up your proposals for the next two directorates. The next two directorates are the Directorate of Intelligence and the Directorate of Critical Infrastructure--the Directorate of Intelligence and the Directorate of Critical Infrastructure, those two directorates that are created by Mr. Lieberman's bill. See, I am with Mr. Lieberman on that. But I am saying: Wait just a little bit. Let's hold our hands on the bridle here. Let's not let this horse run away with this wagon. Let's hold up here. You send up your proposal, Mr. Secretary. I assume that might be Mr. Ridge or somebody else, I don't know who; it is the Secretary we are talking about. Yes, you send up your proposals 120 days after February 3 while the fleshing out of the Border and Transportation Directorate is going forward. Then, 120 days later, we say to the Secretary: Send up your proposals for these next two directorates, the Directorate of Intelligence and the Directorate of Critical Infrastructure. All right. The Secretary, then, will send up his proposals for those two directorates. And as far as time is concerned, 120 day later, then--that would be June 3--120 days later would be something like October 1. All right. Let's have the Secretary send up his proposals for the fourth and fifth directorates. Here they are, the Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and the Directorate of Science and Technology. I did not create these directorates; these directorates are to be created under Mr. Lieberman's bill, under his substitute for the House bill. I am taking his words for gospel, and I am saying: OK, let's go along, let's have those directorates. But I am saying, February 3 we will have the proposal for the first directorate; June 3, let's have the proposals from the Secretary of Homeland Security for the next two directorates; then, on October 1, we say to the Secretary, now send up your recommendations to Congress concerning the last two directorates in title I: that is, the Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and the Directorate of Science and Technology. So, there you are, we do it in a staged fashion. One directorate; 4 months later, two more directorates; 4 months later, two more directorates. By the end of that next 4 months, the 13 months would be up, so we will be within the same total timeframe as is envisioned by Mr. Lieberman's committee. It envisions all this being done within 13 months--13 months following the passage of the Act. We are saying the same thing, but we are saying don't do it all at once, and we are not going to give you authority, Mr. President, to do it all at once. We are saying do it, some here, some there, and some there, and let Congress be in on all this all the time--all the way. How does that come about? All right, each set of proposals from the Secretary of Homeland Security will come to the Congress, and they will go to the committee, the Lieberman committee, and its counterpart in the other body. So both the House and Senate will be working on these sets of directorates in stages. Congress will be front and center. Congress isn't going to hand this thing over and then abdicate its responsibility and walk away and stand over here on the sidelines. Congress is going to stay involved. That is what my amendment is about. Let's keep Congress involved. What happens then? All right, let's take the first directorate. That is Border Transportation. The Secretary sends up his proposals to Congress. The proposals, as far as the Senate is concerned, go right straight to the Lieberman committee. Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Thompson stay right front and center. They take these proposals in their committee; they amend them, they adopt them, or whatever. Whatever that committee wishes to make of the proposals that are sent to it by the Homeland Security Director, that committee reports that out as a bill. It comes to the Senate. Oh, that is going to delay. Oh, my goodness, you say, that committee is going to report out another bill and the Senate is going to have to work on it? Yes, that is true. But we can prepare expedited procedures. So I say let's prepare expedited procedures. If we do it in that fashion, we can prepare expedited procedures where the bill is not delayed, where it is not filibustered--it can't be filibustered under expedited procedures-- and the Senate will take that and, under expedited procedures, will consider it. It is not going to be a--what is that infernal thing called?--fast track. That is right, fast track. Under fast track, the Senate doesn't get a chance to amend, but under these expedited procedures I am thinking about, the Senate will be able to work its will and amend the bill that is reported out by Mr. Lieberman and by his committee's counterpart on the other side, in the House of Representatives. That committee would report the bill out to the Senate, the majority leader would call up the bill, and it would be acted upon under expedited procedures and disposed of. Four months later, when the next item came up here, the Directorate of Intelligence and the Directorate of Critical Infrastructure, the same thing, same procedure would obtain. The Secretary of Homeland Security would send his proposals to the Congress. The reason I don't say the President is that if I did, I would make my amendment fall, if cloture were to be invoked on my amendment. If cloture were to be invoked, it would fall because it would not be germane. I have tried to construct this amendment so it would stand the test of germaneness in the event cloture were invoked on this amendment. So instead of the President sending it up, it would be his man--it has to be his man, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The Secretary would send the proposals to the committee, to Mr. Lieberman's committee. Mr. Lieberman's committee, under expedited procedures, would go over the recommendations from the Secretary and send them, in amended form perhaps, to the Senate floor to be taken up here and passed. So the same thing, the same procedure, would obtain in each instance where a directorate or directorates were being fleshed out by agencies. Are we talking about 22 agencies here? No. Twenty-six agencies? No. Twenty-eight agencies? No. Are we talking about 30 agencies? Maybe no, maybe yes. Who knows? In any event, the concept is this: That we avoid the chaos of just passing this bill today--say this is the bill before the Senate today, and it is passed by the House and the Senate and sent to the President. We avoid the chaos that will prevail throughout the affected agencies of Government if this bill is passed and sent to the President because it is all done at once. We hand it over to the President lock, stock, and barrel. We walk away. And the President may take 6 months or he may take 8 months or he may take 13 months before he sends up all of the recommendations dealing with 6 directorates and 22 agencies--or 28. He may take all. Under my amendment, we say no. Let us just take some at a time. Let us see how it works. Let us create that first directorate. Let us have the recommendation of the Secretary of the Department. Let us have his recommendations. Let the Senate, Mr. Lieberman, and the committee look at it. His committee looks at it and reports the bill to the floor. Let us have the Senate look at it, and the same thing in the House but all under expedited procedures. We do some here, do some there, and do some later on. We stage it. We phase it in. We don't just hand it over lock, stock, and barrel, and say: Here it is. It is yours. We avoid the chaos of doing it that way. Let us do it in an orderly way. Let us have an orderly process so we really do not do damage to the proposal by Mr. Lieberman. As a matter of fact, in my way of looking at it, we don't vote. My amendment will say we will create the Department just as Mr. Lieberman creates the Department. We will create six directorates just as Mr. Lieberman creates six directorates. We will have a Secretary and a Deputy Secretary, and we will have seven other Secretaries, and five Assistant Secretaries just as Mr. Lieberman has the same number. We are with you, Committee, Mr. Lieberman's committee. We are with you. But instead of just passing this bill and wiping our hands and walking away, saying, I shall have no more to do with this, it is all yours, Mr. President, we are going to say: Here is the concept. Your Secretary will send up recommendations in intervals. There will be some of it at a time. We will do the first directorate. While that is going through the mill and during the 4 months when those agencies are being moved in, we are going to be taking a look at the next two directorates. But we will have in mind the flaws and the warts that we found in the first transactions. We will have had an opportunity to try. Let us see how it works. If there are flaws, if there are mistakes, we can correct them as we go along, and the next two directorates will not make those same mistakes. When we set up the next phase, the final two directorates we will have benefited by whatever mistakes or whatever shortcomings may have surfaced during the creation of the preceding directorates. It seems to me this is much more logical. It is an orderly process. It keeps Congress--the elected representatives of the people--in the process. And it keeps Mr. Lieberman's committee--which is the committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter--front and center. Why not do it that way? Why not do it in an orderly way rather than just turning the whole thing over all at once and just washing our hands of it, and saying, that is it, it is up to somebody else? That is not the way to do it. I think the concept is one that is unassailable. That is the way it would work under my amendment. We think we are all in agreement. We are talking about at least two dozen agencies and 170,000 Federal employees. That is a big shakeup in our Government. There is virtually little debate going on here. There was a big rush to get this through in a hurry, pass it by September 11, or pass it before we go out for the August recess. Norman Ornstein wrote an article in the Washington Post some several Sundays ago in which he pointed out the chaos. He referred to the chaos that will occur in this Government of ours if we go down the road meekly like lambs to the slaughter and pass this as the administration conceived it in the darkness of midnight in the subterranean caves of the White House; just go along like that with all of these agencies in turmoil, and we transfer 170,000 Federal workers. Here they are--all moving their desks up Pennsylvania Avenue, and they are having to move the telephones and get new telephone numbers. They are having to move their computers, and they are having to do all this. And the people who work in those agencies are going to be shifted to another building with a new mailing address. All of that is going on at the same time. All of these agencies with 170,000 Federal employees all at once--all is going on in the 13-month period. They are going to be working in a different culture, in a different kind of atmosphere with different associations with different assignments than what they have been accustomed to--all of this at once. What pandemonium will have taken over Pennsylvania Avenue. In ``Paradise Lost,'' Milton wrote about the fall of some of the angels from heaven. He wrote about the rebellion against the Creator by these angels and how they conspired to take over. And they fell. They were run out of heaven. Satan and his angels of like mind fell with them. They fell like Lucifer from heaven, and they fell upon the boiling lake. Lucifer sat and built himself a palace there. That palace was called Pandemonium. Do you remember that--those of you who have read Milton's ``Paradise Lost''? He created a palace called Pandemonium. That is exactly what will happen--pandemonium. Go back and read Norman Ornstein. By the way, go back and read Milton's ``Paradise Lost.'' But also go back and read Norman Ornstein's article in the Washington Post of some several weeks go. I will get it. We are going to be debating this beyond today. We certainly won't pass this bill today. I think we are sure of that. So you have an opportunity to go back and read Norman Ornstein's very thoughtful and thought-provoking article about the pandemonium that will reign on Pennsylvania Avenue. He didn't put it in those exact words, but that is what you will be reading about--the pandemonium that will reign and the chaos that will reign when all of these angels--22, 30 of them--so many that nobody knows exactly how many agencies--but 170,000 employees have to rip up their telephones and their computers and carry them off and up and down the avenue. What chaos that will be. Who is going to be minding the store when all of this chaotic exercise is being carried out? Who is going to be minding the store? Who will be watching the terrorists? What will happen to those people right now who are in the agencies of this Government right today? At 5:30, I suppose most of them are not still around; but certainly a lot of them are around, and will be around until midnight and after midnight. They will be out on the borders, securing the borders. They will be out there at the airports. They will be at the ports of entry to this country. They will be all along the border between Canada and the United States and the southern border between Mexico and the United States. They will be out there every hour of the 24 hours. They are out there right now, and they will be there tonight when, Mr. President, you and I are sleeping. They are out there right now. But will these people be at their posts of duty when all of this chaos reigns, when we are going through all this big uprooting of the Government here in Washington, the uprooting of men and women who are at their jobs, at their desks, at their telephones today and every day? They are at their desks securing our country, protecting our country, protecting you and me, and my grandchildren and yours. What will happen when all of this chaos reigns? These people will not know--``Let's see, where am I supposed to go? What room am I in? What is the number and the place I am supposed to go in this new Government?'' They will be saying: ``Where is my computer? Where is my laptop? Where is it? And what is my new telephone number? And, by the way, what is the name of my agency here? Who is in charge here?'' Imagine the chaos. But under my proposal, we will do this in an orderly fashion. We will do the same thing Mr. Lieberman does. In the end, we come out with the same Department, come out with the same directorates, the same number of directorates, named exactly like his directorates. We come out with the same number of Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, the same thing. And we will do all that up front, the superstructure. But the rest of it, flushing out the directorates, determining what agencies go in--we want to know, Mr. Secretary, what are your recommendations with regard to the agencies that go in here. We will be doing all that in an orderly way, 120 days at a time: February 3, the first directorate; June 3, the second and third directorates; October 1, the fourth and fifth directorates. We do not deal with the sixth one because that is in title II. My amendment only goes to title I because I did not want to go and get mixed up and have any problems with germaneness in the event that cloture is invoked on my amendment or on the bill. So that is it. Why the opposition to my amendment? So with Congress dumping the job of dealing with over two dozen agencies and 170,000 employees into the lap of the Secretary, he will no doubt be too busy trying to get his own house in order to spend his time worrying about what the rest of the Federal Government is doing. The Secretary of Homeland Security will not be in a position to coordinate agencies outside of his Department, so who will do it? Who will be responsible for managing and overseeing homeland security functions and resources across the entire Federal Government? That is not like Condoleezza Rice. That is not like the Secretary of State. That is not like the Department of State. Hear me now. That is not like the Secretary of State. They do not concern themselves with agencies all across the whole Federal Government. But this one will. This Homeland Security Department will be concerned with functions and resources that cut across the whole Federal Government. Who will be able to dedicate the time necessary to follow up on the operations of so many agencies in so many different Departments? This is a brandnew Department. Let me tell you, this is a brandnew, shiny toy, unlike the State Department, unlike Condoleezza Rice's Department. I say what I say with great respect to her. But you cannot equate Condoleezza Rice's position with the position of the Director of Homeland Security. Why, her Department was created more than 200 years ago. But not this Department. This is a brandnew Department. It cuts across virtually all agencies of Government; something new. Then how could we equate the National Security Adviser and her position with this new Secretary, this new Director of Homeland Security, who will be in the White House, untouchable? One of my favorite movies, in the old days, when we had black and white television--I can remember back in 1953, I believe it was, or 1954, when my wife and daughters went to one of the stores around here and bought a new television set. Yes, television had not been around long. It just came upon the scene in 1926. I did not have a television set in my house. One evening, I went home from my daily work in the office of mine representing the old Sixth Congressional District in West Virginia, where the current Presiding Officer was born, the distinguished junior Senator from Delaware, who sits in the chair today and presides over this body with such dignity and poise. He was born in that old Sixth Congressional District. That was the district that I represented. Well, that was back in the years 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, and 1958. And one day, when I went home for supper--we called it supper over at our house. We are just country folks. I went home to supper. I had my supper. My wife and I and our two daughters walked into the living room and sat down. And she said: Do you see anything new? I looked around. She said: Do you see anything new in the living room today? I had not seen anything new, but as I looked around, there it was, a brand spanking new black and white television set--black and white. Well, my favorite movies in those days were clean. And they were wholesome movies. There are a few of them left but not many in this day and age. We talk about other people being evil, about Saddam Hussein being evil; just take a look at the television programming in the evenings. I saw, on one of the evening shows--I turned the TV on the other night. I seldom turn it on, but you can't help but see some of them. And I saw some beautiful young women on there, and they were saying words that I wouldn't say, and I have said them all in my time. But I don't like that kind of language in the living rooms of the country. How can we say somebody is evil? We need to take a look at our own self. I cannot look in the mirror and say I am not evil. Nor can any other man, truthfully. Because we have a little bit of Satan in us. We have a spark of the Divine in us. That is why there is an afterlife. And we will have to answer for what we have done in this life. So there is that black and white television set over there. And I liked ``Gunsmoke.'' I kind of liked old Matt Dillon in those days. And I liked ``The Honeymooners,'' Jackie Gleason. And I liked the ``Untouchables'' in those days, Eliott Ness. But here we have the untouchables at the White House. Don't touch them. Don't have them come up here. Don't have them come up. They are the untouchables. Don't have them come up before the committees. This administration thinks we should not have someone of that stature, the stature of Tom Ridge, come up before a committee of the Senate. Who will be responsible for managing and overseeing homeland security functions and resources across the entire Federal Government? Who will be able to dedicate the time necessary to followup on the operations of so many agencies in so many different Departments? Now, I don't want Senators to go home yet. I have been trying to tell Senators that this is a very important step we are being asked to take, and we ought to be paying attention to it. I have been saying that to the administration. Don't push it too fast. Let's don't be stampeded by this administration. The President is out there with his backdrops saying: Contact Congress. Tell them to pass my bill, pass this bill on homeland security. Well, let's just slow down a little bit. So I say, I wouldn't go home quite yet if I were Senators because there might be a vote here yet, or there may not. Who will have enough authority to twist the arms of bureaucrats when implementing homeland security policies in the field proves harder than dreaming them up in the basement of the White House? Who will do all this? Tom Ridge, will he do it, the man who refused to testify before Congress when the Nation most needed to hear from him? No. He had time enough to run around all over the country and speak to chambers of commerce and this organization and that organization about his Homeland Security Department and to say awful nice things about what he was going to do and all of that. He had time to go to Canada. He had time to go to Mexico and talk to the heads of state in some of those areas. He had time to do that, but he didn't have time to come up here and talk with these peons who are sent here by the people out there on the prairies and on the plains and on the mountains and in the valleys and in the fields and in the mines and on the stormy deep. He didn't have time to talk with us. I think he would have come, but the President wouldn't let him because of this misguided perception that, well, because Tom Ridge was an ``adviser'' to the President, he didn't have to go up there; because he is on the President's ``staff,'' he didn't have to go there. This is a different kind of staff. This is a different kind of adviser. Here is a man who goes all over the country speaking about homeland security, about his plans, about what is going to be happening, what is going to be done, what are the concerns, what are the fears, what are the things we have to guard against. But don't go up there in that briar patch. Don't go up there to Congress. Don't go up there and talk to those people. They are the elected representatives of the people. Tom Ridge isn't elected by anybody. But those people up there, those men and women up there in the Halls of Congress, they are elected, and they have to go back at times and answer to the electorate for what they have done or not done. They have to cast votes. They have to show down, and they have to go back home and explain the votes to the people. No, don't go up there to them. And there is that fellow Byrd up there and that fellow Stevens. One is a Democrat and the other one is a Republican. They want Tom Ridge to come up there. And those two guys--I will say ``guys'' because that is all right; that term is used a lot around here these days--those two Senators. The President could even say: I have a letter on my desk written to me by Ted Stevens and by Senator Byrd asking me for an appointment. They want to make their case about having Tom Ridge come up there. But the President of the United States didn't show Senator Stevens or me the courtesy of even writing a letter back to us or calling us on the telephone saying: I received your letter, Senators, but I am of a different opinion. This is why I don't want to send him up there. No, the President didn't show us that courtesy. He had some underling--and I say that with great respect--a person who wrote the letter. I think there were one or two of them down there who wrote letters back to me and to Senator Stevens saying: The President has received your letter and this is why it can't be done or won't be done. Now, how do you like that? Here is the President pro tempore of the Senate, the senior Democrat in the Senate of the United States has written asking the President for an invitation, asking for an invitation to come to the White House to discuss having Mr. Ridge come up before the Senate Appropriations Committee when it holds important hearings. Is that changing the tone in Washington? Is that changing the tone in Washington? Here is the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, former chairman of the Appropriations Committee from the Republican side of the aisle, a man, who knows, who could be the next President pro tempore of the Senate, the man right here at this desk who sits in this chair on which I hold my hand at this moment. Here are two very senior Members. Not that all wisdom flows from the limbs and joints and brains of these two Senators, but they have been here a while. They are the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. We wanted an opportunity. We had been turned down in our letters. We had been rejected. We asked for an invitation. We asked for the President to give us an appointment. Let us come down and explain our case for having Tom Ridge come down. Did the President ever invite us down? No. No. Was that changing the tone in Washington? That didn't do any good. That didn't help at all. Here we are with the same thing. Here we have this administration wanting to turn hands down on the idea of having the Homeland Security Director come up to the Hill and testify on his confirmation and have the Senate vote to confirm. Why not? Why not? This Constitution that I hold in my hand tells me that the Senate may confirm or will confirm. Certain offices will be appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate. And up until this point, I don't remember Presidents dictating to the Senate as to what offices the Senate may create and which will be confirmed and which will not. I don't remember that happening. This is a new leaf in my book of 50 years here in Congress, the very idea. And now we want to say, OK, Mr. President, we will do it your way. We will yield on this. You can appoint your man. We won't require him to be confirmed. So are we going to hand over this responsibility to Tom Ridge, to entrust him with these important duties that extend far beyond the White House gates, after he has already clearly demonstrated an unwillingness to cooperate with Congress on a matter that directly affects the hearts and lives of every one of our constituents? That is how important it is. This is a matter that affects the hearts and lives of every one of our constituents. Senator Thompson says we should. He trusts the President to command the secret war on terror without input from Congress. I guess Senator Thompson--and I have great respect for him--feels confident that Tom Ridge has enough clout to do the job. But I am not sure that one man's clout will be enough. On my side of the aisle there are Senators who are willing to say the same thing. Well, they say that vote has been decided earlier today. I don't believe that has been decided earlier today. The question we voted on earlier today went beyond that. John Dean, the former counsel to President Nixon, knows something about putting Executive power in the hands of White House advisers and beyond the reach of congressional oversight. This past April, Mr. John Dean wrote a column in which he expressed concerns about entrusting such responsibilities of coordinating homeland security to a White House aide with no statutory authority. Where is the statutory authority for this White House aide? Oh, I know the President issued an Executive order, but where is the statutory authority for it? Somebody has to ask for money once in a while. Money doesn't grow on trees. They have to come here at some point. This old Appropriations Committee is a waterhole. Out there in the great forest are a lot of animals. They roam around out there, and when the night comes and the shadows and the curtains of night come, you will hear something rustling in the leaves and you will hear a limb crack and a twig break. By golly, there are animals out in that forest. At some point, they all have to come to the waterholes, don't they? The birds, the bees, and the animals on four legs--don't they have to come to the waterhole at some point? Well, the Appropriations Committee is the waterhole. At some point, these people down at the other end of the avenue also have to come to the waterhole. I know the President is Commander in Chief, whether he is a Democrat or a Republican. It is so stated by this Constitution, which I hold in my hand. But the Commander in Chief, the President, shall be the commander in chief of the Army and the Navy and the militia when called into service to the country. But suppose Congress doesn't provide an Army and Navy for the President to command? Yes, he is the Commander in Chief. Charles I of England, in 1639, I believe, was the first to use that term, ``commander in chief.'' That goes back a long ways, to 1639. But in 1649, Charles I lost his head. His head was severed from his body. That was Charles I of England. Some Senators may have forgotten it, but the Parliament and the King of England had a war. There was a war between the King and Parliament. Can you imagine a war in this country between the President of the United States and Congress? That is the way it was in England. You can change history all you want and you can talk about political correctness all you want, but the people who wrote this Constitution were British subjects. Some had been born overseas. Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, and several of them were first immigrant descendants. There was Franklin and there were others, and I believe James Morris may have been born in England. In any event, these were British subjects. Some were Irishmen, some were Scots, but they were British. You can say all you want, and political correctness is not going to change that. This Constitution was written by men--not women. In that day they did not have women elected as delegates to the convention, but there were the men, British subjects. They knew about the history of Englishmen. They knew about the struggles of Englishmen. They knew about the Magna Carta, which was wrung from a despot in 1215, along the banks of the Thames River. On June 15, 1215, they knew about that. They knew that the barons stood there with their swords in their scabbards. They knew that Englishmen, going back for many years under the Anglo Saxons, after William of Normandy came to England in 1066 and brought feudalism to England, they knew the Englishmen had fought and shed their blood for the concept that the people should be represented by elected representatives in the Commons. They knew--those men who shed their blood--the power of the purse would be vested in the Commons, in Parliament. Englishmen fought for centuries in order to win that battle over the power of the purse. They knew that in 1688--let me go back to 1649 for just a minute. I was earlier talking about the war between King Charles I, who believed in the divine right of Kings, and his father, James I of Scotland, was also a devotee of the idea that the King was God's immediate representative on Earth. So they believed in what is called ``divine right of Kings.'' James I was a very strong devotee of that idea. His son, Charles I, was as much a devotee of that misguided idea--maybe more so--than James. But Charles I carried it a little bit too far. The High Court of Justice was created January 3, 1649; and on January 30--less than a month later--Charles I lost his head before perhaps 200,000 people. What followed that, in quick measure, was the Commons outlawed the Lords. There would be no more King, no more House of Lords. So our forefathers knew all about this. They knew how Englishmen had shed their blood to wrest from tyrannical monarchs the power of the purse because the power of the purse is the greatest raw power that there is in government. Cicero, that great Roman orator said, ``There is no fortress so strong that money cannot take it.'' So there you have it. The Englishmen knew that. Our forebears knew that. So the men who wrote the Constitution knew that. And they knew that this right that elected representatives of the people have control over the public purse had been set as an example back in the British Isles from which they--most of them or their forebears--had lately come. So there you have it. That is history. There is more to it than that, but that is just a little of it. (Mr. DAYTON assumed the Chair.)

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

Robert Byrd

Speeches

Manage analytics