Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I have been saying to my Senate colleagues that we had better take some time and look at what we are doing. What was about to happen, in my judgment, would have borne out my concerns and my warnings. An amendment has been offered by the distinguished manager of the bill. He certainly has far more expertise with respect to this bill than I have. He has spent days, nights, and weeks, I would say, on it. So in taking the floor at this time, as far as I am concerned, it is a labor of love. I am not on the committee, but this is a good example. Senators--at least one Senator--did not know what we were doing. An amendment was called up, I understand, 15 minutes ago. I do not think I have inaccurately stated what Senator Thompson had indicated with reference to when this amendment was called up. We will say within the last half hour. I suppose that is accurate. The amendment comes from my side of the aisle. Normally, I might not pay quite that much attention to it, but I have spent a lot of time on the House bill and on the Lieberman substitute, and I have been very concerned that Senators really are not paying attention. That is my observation. I may be very wrong in that. I am sure the Senators on both sides of the aisle who are members of the Lieberman committee know what is going on. But I don't know about the rest of us. Here we have an amendment before the Senate, as I understand it, that would eliminate the requisite confirmation by the Senate of the Homeland Security Director, the individual who is in the White House, occupying a place which is now occupied by Mr. Ridge. It would seem to me we ought to require confirmation of that person. I heard Mr. Lieberman say that it is somewhat similar to the National Security Director, Condoleeza Rice. She does not require confirmation. We have a State Department, Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense we can call up at any time and find out what we want to know with respect to defense and international security matters. I made that same argument with respect to Condoleeza Rice back in the days when Senator Stevens and I were trying hard to get the President to send Mr. Ridge before the Senate Appropriations Committee to answer questions with respect to the appropriations budget. There were those who said Dr. Rice does not have to come before the Congress and answer questions, and I said we can get the Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State. That is quite true. However, Mr. President, the Homeland Security Department is going to be in a far different position than Dr. Rice is in. The Director of Homeland Security will be the person who knows all the answers with respect to homeland security. That persons's powers will be far broader in many ways than Dr. Rice and her powers. The first Secretary of State was appointed in the very early days of the Republic. The same was true with the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Treasury. We have something before the Senate that is new, a situation that has never prevailed in this country, where it is attacked from within by terrorists and where the President has used an Executive order to create a homeland security agency. I don't think much of this Executive order, as a matter of fact. I am afraid we are seeing too many of them, too often. The position that Governor Ridge has now held was created by an Executive order. This is not just a little clerk down there in the bowels of the White House working. This is not just an ordinary adviser. This is a new type of war. This is a new type of agency, a new kind of department. Yes, we need it. I have been in favor of creating a Department of Homeland Security. But having read the administration's proposal with respect to the creation of the Department, and having read the House bill, H.R. 5005, in regard to the creation of the Department, I have been more and more constrained to believe that we have a new ``animal'' in this Department of Homeland Security. It is not like the Department of Energy. It is not like the Department of Interior or the Department of Transportation. It is not like most of the Departments that have been with this Government for a long time, several of which have been created while I have been a Member of Congress. This is an entirely different breed of Department. This is a Department that is going to encompass many issues that are of interest to several of the Departments, the Secretaries of which were not even aware of when the President announced his intention to create a homeland security agency, and an agency answerable to him. Many of the Secretaries who are in the Departments that were to be ultimately involved were not aware of this until the day the President announced it, I am told, or at least I read that in the newspaper. So this is a new animal. If all Senators would read the House bill, they would get a reflection of the administration's wishes with respect to the Department of Homeland Security--not entirely. I believe the House bill is in some respects better than the administration's proposal, but the bill by Mr. Lieberman's committee, as reported out of his committee, is better than the House bill. However, we have had too much of this lately: An administration that wants a program run out of the White House. And now the administration does not want this position confirmed. Let me restate that. The administration does not want the Director to be confirmable by the Senate. That alone makes me very suspicious. We have an administration that operates a great deal in secret, wants to operate even further in secret, wants to be more secretive. It was very secretive about the so-called shadow government. I didn't know anything about shadow government until I read about it in the newspaper. The administration tried to claim that I had been told what that was. The administration was wrong 100 percent. I had never been told. Of course, after this appeared in the newspapers, the administration was willing to try to come up and explain what this is about. And we have seen this whole Executive order with respect to a Department of Homeland Security, the way in which that suddenly emerged from the dark mists of secrecy, we have seen the same path. We have an administration that looks upon the Congress of the United States as a subordinate body. I am sure some of the administration officials look upon Congress with utter contempt. They don't want Congress in this position. The Senate, of course, is one-half of the Congress, being one of two branches. I don't want that. And I am not going to knuckle under to what they want. This Senator is not--now, tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow in this respect. I may be overridden. The Senate, I said myself, is more than the 100 hearts, and the Senate will eventually work its will on this, I suppose. But it is not going to do so in the next 15 minutes. This is a position that ought to be confirmed. It doesn't make any difference what President Bush wants or what he doesn't want. The Congress is an equal branch. This Congress is unlike, perhaps, the State Legislature of West Virginia. The State Legislature of West Virginia may feel it has to go along with its Governor. I have been in the State Legislature of West Virginia. I know a little about how legislatures work and how Governors operate at the State level. They generally are very concerned about the State constitution, what it allows with respect to the budgets and so on, the State budgets. I have seen some other Governors come to Washington as President and they think that, well, they did it this way in the government of Georgia or they did it this way in the State of California or they do it this way in the State of Texas. Well, things here are not done as they are done at the State level in West Virginia. Why should we bend to the administration's opposition to this point? Why shouldn't this individual be confirmed? It is not enough to say: Well, the National Security Adviser doesn't require confirmation. It is not enough to say that. That does not win the jury, I would hope, in regard to a Homeland Security Director. Just because Dr. Rice isn't required to be confirmed is no good reason why the Director of Homeland Security--be it Mr. Ridge, eventually, or John Doe--there is no good argument as to why that person should not be confirmed. Are we going to sheath our sword and leave the field on that flimsy argument: Well, Dr. Rice is not confirmed so I see no harm in not having the Director of Homeland Security confirmed. It is an entirely different argument. It is as different as day and night. That is no argument. Why should I say I take my seat now and let this vote occur in the next 15 minutes--or the next 30? That is no argument. Who is here to hear the argument? There may be a good many Senators in their offices listening to it. That is how I kind of caught on to it. I am prepared to speak for several hours, if I can get the materials I want that I have gone over during the recess. I don't know how other Senators spent their time. I am sure they were very busy during the recess, but I spent most of the time during the recess studying the House bill and the Lieberman substitute. I had objected, as Senators will recall, to going to the bill before the recess. I had objected to taking up any substitute before the recess. I felt that it was a matter worthy of considerable time and debate. I was here when we created the Department of Energy. I was here when we created the Department--today they call it Health and Welfare or something like that. Abe Ribicoff was the Secretary of that Department. He later came here as a U.S. Senator. I was here when the Department of Veterans Affairs was created. Thank God I am here now when we are discussing the creation of this Department. This is a far different kettle of fish. Why should this Senate kowtow to any President, whether it be Democrat or Republican? If former President Clinton were in the White House today, I would take the very same position. It is not because we have a Republican in the White House. It is because we have an administration that is intent on being secretive, has only a sneer, as it were--at least some of the people down there--for the Congress of the United States. It looks upon the Congress with contempt. Some of the people in the administration don't want to live by the ``rules'' that have governed for many years. I use the word ``rules'' because I am remembering, in one case, one of the Cabinet officers using that word. We are tied down by rules. The administration people read ``Gulliver's Travels.'' It must have been required reading because they continue to talk about the Lilliputians. That is the attitude toward the Congress of the United States. I do not want to give any administration too much power. I want any President to have whatever power he needs to deal with the protection of this country, homeland security. But I do not want to give any President power that he does not need but wants, and so I am a little bit aghast at the willingness of some of our people on my own side to just bow down and scrape and say: Well, no, that's not too important. We don't confirm Dr. Rice. We didn't confirm her predecessor. We don't confirm the security advisers. Therefore I see no reason why we need to confirm the Director of Homeland Security. I do. There is a great deal of difference. And, also, I haven't had an opportunity to read this amendment. I had an opportunity to talk with Senator Lieberman, perhaps for 2 minutes here, and with Mr. Thompson for less than that. I haven't read this amendment, but I have heard enough about it to oppose it--to oppose Mr. Lieberman's amendment. Of course I will be against Mr. Thompson's amendment, also. I am against his amendment, too. But the first vote would come on or in relation to the Lieberman amendment--I believe that is right. The first vote would come on or in relation to the Lieberman amendment as against the Thompson amendment. I assume Mr. Thompson is going to move to table the Lieberman amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. When was this second-degree amendment introduced?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am sorry I have not been in a position to be following the debate. Without losing my right to the floor, Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 2 minutes I asked for be extended to 4 minutes so that we would have two additional amendments and I may show this amendment to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. BYRD. No. I think the Senator from New Mexico will embrace the amendment.

Mr. BYRD. It will take me a little longer than 2 minutes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the President talks a lot about the coffee shop in Crawford, TX, which brings to mind Uncle Josh and Aunt Nancy's Smokehouse in West Virginia where I have been talking with people for a long time. You ought to come down to that shop sometime--Uncle Josh and Aunt Nancy's Smokehouse. I talk with those people quite often. We have one of those in every State, I suppose. I suppose each of the Senators here has a coffee shop such as the one in Crawford, TX, or like Uncle Josh and Aunt Nancy's Smokehouse in their State. So I have one of those. It is good to get back home and kind of get the feel of the people and ``press the flesh'' a little, as Lyndon Johnson used to say, and know what they are saying back there in that coffee shop. But, Madam President, despite all of his talk about staying in touch with the people at the coffee shop in Crawford, TX, the President seems to have lost touch with the needs of the American people. I worry that the extra caffeine must have affected the President's ability to take the pulse of America. After looking at some of the administration's actions over the past few weeks, I am almost certain of it. At almost every turn, the President seems to be a day late and a dollar short. Let me just give a few examples. On July 16, the House added $700 million of supplemental funding to the Interior bill to fight fires that are raging across this Nation. The administration, through the Office of Management and Budget, wrote to the Congress and strongly objected to that funding. Yet on August 28--just 6 weeks later--the President requested $825 million for emergency firefighting funding. It is a complete about-face. In mid-July, the White House, through the Office of Management and Budget, again pressed Congress to reduce the size of the supplemental that was then in conference. The OMB Director, Mitch Daniels, recommended that conferees on the bill reduce funding for the Transportation Security Administration by $219 million. The conferees acceded to the administration's request. Yet on September 3--just 6 weeks later--the President requested that $219 million and an additional $327 million for the Transportation Security Administration. That is $546 million that, 6 weeks earlier, the administration did not think was necessary. In late July, Congress approved $200 million for economic assistance to Israel and $50 million of disaster assistance for Palestinians, which was not requested by the President. The President had until September 1 to designate the funds as emergency and, thus, make the funds available to spend. The President rejected the funding on September 1. He could have had it then. All he needed to do was sign his name. No, he rejected it on September 1. But 2 days later, on September 3, the President requested--you guessed it--$250 million for the very same purpose. Are we seeing a pattern here? It is as plain as the noonday Sun on a cloudless sky. On September 4, the administration wrote Congress to stress its desire for Congress to restrain spending by keeping spending for the fiscal year that begins October 1 to a level of $759 billion, and yet on August 2 and September 3 the President requested $1.3 billion of additional funding and proposed no offsets for that spending. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that the President has requested $760.5 billion for the fiscal year that begins October 1, and yet the President insists we spend only $759 billion--that far and no farther, $759 billion. This President seems to rely on the same types of accounting techniques with regard to homeland security that are causing such problems in corporate America. The President and his administration love to tell Americans that we are constantly at risk of new terrorist attacks. The President's Cabinet members have been out in great force time and time again putting the country on alert for a possible terrorist attack. We have been told to watch the bridges, watch the fuel trucks, watch the banks. Remember the little boy who cried wolf too often, too many times? So we are constantly at risk, the administration says. In fact, just this afternoon the administration raised the Nation's level of alert from yellow to orange, believing there is a high risk for a terrorist attack. I have been thinking that, too. I suppose most people in this country have been concerned about that as well. Apparently, security concerns have grown by such an extent in the last 24 hours that Americans at home and around the world are being told to be extra vigilant and alert. Specifically, the Attorney General pointed to new threats aimed at embassies overseas, at our Nation's transportation network, and at the symbols and monuments of our country. That is why Congress overwhelmingly included in the emergency supplemental package $10 million for embassy security. That is why Congress passed $17.7 million for security at the Washington Monument and the Jefferson Memorial. That is why Congress approved $150 million for airport security. That is why Congress approved another $42 million for security at air traffic control towers. Congress has not been asleep at the wheel. Congress has been acting like Paul Revere in saying: Alert, rise, for the day is passing, and you lie sleeping on. Others have girded their armor and forth to battle have gone. So Congress has been sounding this alert. That is why Congress approved $150 million for airport security and another $42 million for security at air traffic control towers, but the administration rejected those items and labeled them as wasteful spending. Wasteful, my foot. There is nothing wasteful about investing in the security of the American people. Hear me down there at the other end of the avenue. Hear me, Mr. President. There is nothing wasteful about investing in the security of the American people who send us to Washington, whose taxes pay the bills, whose sons and daughters give their blood in wars--the American people. The only thing wasted by the President's rejection of these funds is time, time necessary to put these dollars to work and put them to work rightly, prudently, carefully, to put these dollars to work and to protect American lives. The administration is right to warn America when it learns of new, credible terrorist threats, whether at home or abroad. However, Americans must have the tools to secure our homeland. The homeland defense problem cannot be solved simply by moving boxes around on an organizational flowchart or by ``now you see it, now you don't'' funding shenanigans. A few weeks ago, Congress approved $2.5 billion for homeland defense programs, $2.5 billion that was put into legislation by this Senate through its Appropriations Committee, in a bipartisan display of support; $2.5 billion for homeland defense programs to secure our ports, our river ports, our seaports, to secure our airports, to secure our nuclear facilities, to train and equip our Nation's police and firefighters. Those are the people who ran up the steps, those are the people who sought to protect the lives of others, and those are the people who gave their own lives to save the lives of others. Those are the people who have now left widows and orphans, happy dreams forever gone. That is what Congress was thinking of when we put that money in the bill. This funding would have addressed the very security concerns the administration outlined this very afternoon. The first question that was ever asked in the history of the human race was, ``Where art thou?'' When God came in the cool of the day, walking in the Garden of Eden looking for Adam, Adam was in hiding. God said, ``Adam, where art thou?'' That was the first question that was ever asked in the history of the human race: ``Adam, where art thou?'' I say, where were you? The people will say to the administration, where were you? Where were you when the Congress passed that measure providing $2.5 billion for the security, for the welfare, and for the protection of the American people? Where were you, Mr. President? Where were you? It was up to you. Just the signature of a name would have given the $2.5 billion to the firefighters, the policemen, the health emergency people, would have given you that money for the protection of our nuclear facilities, for the protection of our ports of entry, for better border security to the north, for better border security to the south, for more food inspectors. Why did you turn your back on that money for the security of the American people? I say again, that funding would have addressed the very security concerns the administration outlined this afternoon. Yet on September 1, the President chose to cancel those funds, turn his back on those funds, push them away. I wonder what goes into that coffee in Crawford? Today, the Senate passed a drought relief amendment by a 79-to-16 margin. This amendment would provide disaster assistance to our Nation's farmers and ranchers in the face of unprecedented drought. That ought to be pretty easy to understand. I have lived in northern Virginia now for 50 years, the same number of years that I have served in Congress. In those 50 years, I don't recall ever such a drought as we have experienced and such weather as we have experienced as this year. I have been accustomed to pulling up my tomato plants, cutting up the stems, and putting them in the trash bags to be hauled away by the garbage truck. And I have been accustomed to doing that in mid- September or late September. This year, forget it. I did it in mid- August. Those vines were dying. The blossoms that had come earlier had never flowered into tomatoes. Don't think I am a great tomato producer. I only have three or four vines. I have planted as many as seven or eight during the years I have been in McLean, but that is just from a wee tomato farmer. This is a drought. I have lived now 85 years, lacking a very few days--85 years. I have seen something happening out in the heavens as we witnessed pestilences and droughts, floods and fires. Something has happened. This was an unprecedented drought as far as I am concerned. I am probably not going to put out any tomato plants next year. The country will not miss my tomato plants, but the country misses the signature on that $2.5 billion that would have been turned loose, that would have been there for the country, for the protection of the people, for all these items and more that I have mentioned. Yet the President has told our farmers and ranchers that he opposes this funding. How about that? He has told the farmers and ranchers he opposes this funding. But he did not oppose a $1.3 trillion tax cut that goes for the most part to the wealthiest in this country. Those people never lived on my side of the tracks, the people who are going to be the beneficiaries of most of that tax cut. They did not come from my side of the tracks. No, the people on my side of the tracks have not reaped any benefit from that tax cut. My side of the tracks, yes, had a coffee shop on that side, too, but not many people could afford 5 cents for the cup of coffee. So when the President tells our farmers and ranchers he opposes this funding, without this help many farms and ranches will dry up and disappear. Congress knows how to take the pulse of the Nation and to respond to the needs of the people. There are people in this Congress who may have lived on the other side of the tracks, mingled with people not just in the Crawford coffee shop but in Uncle Josh's and Aunt Nancy's Smokehouse from where the common people, the ordinary people come. If we wait for the President to change his mind, there may be no pulse to take for our farmers and ranchers. Once again, the President seems to be a day late and a dollar short. It is time for the administration to wake up and smell the coffee. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may just momentarily desist and continue to hold the floor?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Thompson amendment touches the bill in more than one place. It touches the bill in several places so it is open to a point of order to strike, a point of order against this amendment because it touches the bill in several places--more than one place, certainly. Also, it certainly is open to division. I am not sure at this point in time that I intend to pursue either of these two courses: make a point of order or ask for divisions. I am not sure of that at all. I want to proceed right now with my statement. But I want to call attention to the fact that neither the Senate, apparently, judging from the attendance on the floor, nor the press is greatly concerned about this bill. Maybe Members and the media are just taking it for granted that this bill will pass, and it is a good bill, and the President wants it, and there it is; that is all there is to it. It is going to pass, so why fool around with it? Let's get on with something else. We have many other issues to occupy our attention. I cannot fathom the reasons, except that I do not believe Senators have read this bill. I just do not believe it. If Senators read this bill, I think many more Senators would express concerns about it. Several Senators have expressed concerns about it. I am very concerned about it. It is a complex bill, and I think we are about to pass legislation here, if we are not very careful, that we will come to rue, that there will be many, many problems in connection with this bill that Senators have not thought through and will look back and say: My, how could that have happened? I didn't know that was in the bill. So, in a way, I can understand Mr. Thompson's desire to strike titles II and III of the bill. I can understand that. I am not all together happy with either of those titles. But I think that the Senate will err in adopting the amendment by Mr. Thompson. Throughout this debate, such debate as we have had, I have made clear my respect for the efforts of Senator Thompson in his work with Chairman Lieberman on the homeland security bill. First of all, I think the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, has a head full of common sense. You can find a good bit of that in those Tennessee hills and throughout most of Appalachia. I can say that because I am likewise from Appalachia. There are several States in Appalachia. But this Senator from Tennessee is one of the Senators representing a State in Appalachia where the common people, the common folk live. There are a lot of them down there, just ordinary people who live on my side of the tracks, the side of the tracks where I grew up. I have also made clear my intention to oppose any effort that I believe jeopardizes the rights and liberties of the American people. I, therefore, must oppose Senator Thompson's amendment because, as I see it, it would contribute to the undermining of our constitutional system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches. Now, to begin with, let me say that the administration's proposal does exactly that in several ways. I will not go into all the ways today. But if Senators will take the time to read the House bill, which reflects, in great measure, the administration's position on homeland security, they will find many instances in the House bill reflecting the administration's position which do just that--that get between the Constitution and the people, that put the Constitution and the people off to one side--and while this piece of legislation goes like a steamroller over that constitutional system of checks and balances, the separation of powers. So the Thompson amendment would strike titles II and III of the Lieberman substitute. Title II is a title that provides a National Office for Combating Terrorism be established within the Executive Office of the President, presumably to replace the current White House Office of Homeland Security. So we already have, in essence, just such an office as the one we are talking about in title II; namely, a National Office for Combating Terrorism. There is already one in the White House. There is already one established within the Executive Office of the President. It has not been established by law, but it has been established by Executive order. I do not have much use for Executive orders, whether they are issued under a Republican President or a Democratic President. But this legislation would replace, in my judgment, the current White House Office of Homeland Security. In the legislation we are talking about here, in title II of the underlying legislation, such an office would be headed by a Director, who would be subject to Senate confirmation and made accountable to the Congress. Get that. We already have such a Director down at the White House now working within the office of the White House, and that person is Tom Ridge, a former Governor of Pennsylvania. He has been there quite a while. He has been given a great deal of authority by the administration, by this President. He is an individual who is not subject to Senate confirmation and, therefore, is not made accountable to the Congress. This legislation would make him subject to confirmation and accountable to the Congress. Why shouldn't that be the case? Mr. President, the White House Office of Homeland Security was created to respond to an immediate need for an Executive Office that would oversee our Nation's homeland security efforts. Since its creation, however, it has become clear that that office, which has taken on such an important role in protecting our homeland, was also designed to be insulated from the American people, to operate from within the White House without congressional oversight and outside our constitutional system of Government, without, as I say, congressional oversight. Now, Senator Stevens and I, as all Senators know, tried repeatedly to have Mr. Ridge come before the Senate Appropriations Committee and testify on the budget for homeland security. The Director of the Office of Homeland Security has repeatedly refused. I say with respect to Mr. Ridge, he is a former Governor. He is a very able, likable man, who once served in the Congress of the United States. He repeatedly refused to testify before the Congress. The administration arrogantly, in my opinion--arrogantly--maintained that he is accountable to the President only and not to the people's Representatives. Now, I have some sympathy for the argument that a President ought to be able to have advisers from whom he can receive confidential guidance. I am not saying that every Tom, Dick, and Harry, every clerk high and low at the White House, should have to come up and testify before the Congress if it invites him or her up to the Hill. I have sympathy for that idea as a concept. But in the Director of Homeland Security, we have something that goes far beyond a mere staff person, far beyond a mere adviser to the President. The Bush administration designed the Office of Homeland Security to be the Federal Government's point man on homeland security. There is the man. He is the man in whom the President of the United States has reposed great confidence and authority. Authority? Well, there was an Executive order. The Office of Homeland Security was intimately involved in crafting the President's proposal to create a new Department of Homeland Security. I have said many times, I have almost spoken ad nauseam about the way this idea was initiated in the bowels of the White House and brought to life, much like Aphrodite, who sprang to life from the ocean foam and later appeared before the gods on Mount Olympus, and they all were much taken with Aphrodite; or much like Minerva who sprang from the forehead of Jove, fully armed, fully clothed, fully grown. And here it is, Minerva. Well, that is the way this thing kind of came up. It came right out of the White House like an ocean foam. There it is, bango. You got it. We have something here that was created, lock, stock, and barrel, from an embryo of a tiny imagination. It was not quite the committee that created the Declaration of Independence, not quite of that caliber, but it was a committee of respectable men. There were four of them. It was all done in secret, you know, down there in the subterranean caverns where there was not even a candlelight whose rays might illuminate just what was being talked about. But here it came. Do you know why it came? In large measure, I say to my friend, Senator Thompson, I think one of the compelling factors in this idea that sprang from the White House foam might have been that legislation, that appropriations bill which was fast approaching and which had in it the language that Senator Stevens and I put in it to require Mr. Ridge to be confirmed by the Senate of the United States. That was in the appropriations bill. That appropriations bill passed the Senate in the seventies for it. Nobody took on provision. Nobody attacked that provision when it was before the Senate. Nobody tried to strike it. But there was a provision in that appropriations bill that said the Director of Homeland Security should be confirmed by the Senate of the United States. Well, the administration saw that coming. They saw it coming like a train down the track. And it passed the Senate. Nobody raised any questions about it. It was headed for conference. And it went to conference. So the administration, I think, thought: Wait a minute here. We had better get on board. Let's not get on board. Let's get ahead of that train. That is a fast train coming down the track. Let's get ahead of it. And so here came this thing out of the dungeon, out of the dark bowels of the Earth, beneath the White House. So the administration had to do something fast to get ahead of this train so that the administration could claim, of course, credit for it. So here they came with this big idea of having a Department of Homeland Security. I am not sure they would have done that had Ted Stevens and I and the other members of the Appropriations Committee not included that provision in our appropriations bill which passed the Senate with nobody raising a finger against that provision. The administration saw that train coming. The Office of Homeland Security was intimately involved in crafting the President's proposal to create a new Department of Homeland Security. Its Director has represented our Nation in forging international agreements related to our homeland security. You see, Governor Ridge could go to Mexico, he could go to Canada, but he couldn't come here before the Senate Appropriations Committee. ``No. No. No, don't throw me into that briar patch.'' He didn't want to come here. I think probably it was the President who didn't want him to come here. Further, the President has vested in the Director of Homeland Security budgetary powers that led our colleague, Senator Specter, to say in testimony before the Governmental Affairs Committee in April: Some have compared Governor Ridge's position to that of Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser. However, Governor Ridge's authority over such a large piece of the budget clearly distinguishes his position from that of the National Security Adviser. When an adviser such as Governor Ridge has significant responsibility for budgetary matters, he should be subject to congressional oversight. That was Senator Specter. He went on to say: We need to ``codify'' Governor Ridge's position. The Office of Homeland Security is perhaps the clearest example of the administration's contempt, utter contempt, for Congress, a contempt that drives the White House to operate in a cloud of secrecy, beyond the boundaries of our constitutional system of government. I recall--I am sure my distinguished friend from Tennessee recalls because he was here, as I was, and he was right in the middle of the news of that day and time--the Nixon administration attempting to create an entire executive system to bypass Congress. It has been called a ``personalized presidency.'' It has been called an ``administrative presidency.'' But whatever we call it, President Nixon wanted an administration in which the Federal Government would be run out of the White House, while the executive departments, those agencies and offices that are subjected to the oversight of Congress--I am talking about the people's branch--were, for all practical purposes, stripped of policymaking powers. I do remember that period quite well. I was the Senate Democratic whip at the time. Senator Thompson must remember that period, too. He was minority counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities--in other words, the Watergate committee. He did a very competent job because he is a very competent man and a very knowledgeable person, as I said, and has a lot of the sense of the American people who read this thing and who are far ahead of any of us most of the time. I remember not only the Watergate scandal, but I also remember the atmosphere and the culture that created it. As President Nixon's counsel, John Dean, later pointed out, Watergate was ``an inevitable outgrowth of a climate'' that had developed over the previous years of the administration. Foreign and military policy at the time was being run not by the State Department so much or the Defense Department but largely out of the White House by the National Security Council, with National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger in command. There existed at the White House a layer of Government between the President and his Cabinet departments, with their congressionally confirmed Cabinet secretaries. To run domestic policy, the Nixon administration created a White House Domestic Council, which was patterned after Kissinger's version of the National Security Council. According to former Nixon administration official Richard Nathan, in his book, ``The Plot That Failed: Nixon and the Administrative Presidency,'' Nixon's intent was ``to achieve policy aims through administrative action as opposed to legislative change.'' I repeat, ``through administration action as opposed to legislative change''--by the White House rather than the Congress, where the people have their say. I recall the Nixon administration's defiance of Congress and the constitutional process. This included Nixon administration officials refusing to appear before Congress. It included the Nixon administration's efforts to ``stonewall'' Congress by denying information to congressional committees. It included the Nixon administration's efforts to belittle Congress and its constitutional responsibilities. It included the impoundment of funds appropriated by Congress by Mr. Nixon. ``Quite clearly,'' I wrote in my own history of the Senate, ``President Nixon set out to circumvent Congress.'' ``Had Nixon succeeded,'' wrote Arthur Schlesinger, ``he would have effectively ended Congress as a serious partner in the Constitutional order''--a stunning thought that, through such brazen power grabs by the administration, in fact, one man could so dramatically shift the balance of power that safeguards the people's liberties. It should worry us all. It should worry us, as the people's elected representatives. It should worry the media, as the fourth estate that is to enlighten the people--our people. It should worry us all just how easily that shift can be accomplished. Cloaked in secrecy and shrouded in arrogance, the Nixon administration became one in which the President and his aides believed that they operated outside the constitutional process and beyond congressional oversight. ``Even before Watergate,'' wrote Nathan, ``Nixon's management strategy was criticized as dictatorial, illegal and impolite.'' My point is that Watergate didn't just happen. Years of Executive secrecy and arrogance and contempt for Congress created it. As John Dean said, it was an ``inevitable outgrowth.'' When I think of these preconditions that led to Watergate, I keep thinking--I cannot help but think of the current administration. I am concerned--no, let me say I am not just concerned, I am alarmed that in this administration we are witnessing another Nixonian approach to Government; that is, holding the Congress at bay, saying to congressional committees, no, this man won't come; he is not coming up there--holding the Congress at bay using Senate-confirmed department and agency heads, while the real policy decisions are being made by advisers to the President behind the protected walls of the White House. That is where the real decisions are being made. The Assistant to the President for National Security, Condoleezza Rice, plays a major role in crafting foreign policy for the Bush administration. That position, however, unlike that of Secretary of State, is not subject to Senate confirmation. While the Secretary of State testifies regularly before the Congress and is accountable for the Bush administration's foreign policy, the President's National Security Adviser operates secretly, inside the White House, and is largely unaccountable to the American public. The same can be said for the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, Larry Lindsey. The President's economic adviser is not subject to Senate confirmation and, while he crafts economic policy for the administration, he is not accountable for that policy to the Congress. The Treasury Secretary, who is confirmed by the Senate, has to justify his decisions and actions to Congress and to the public. The President's economic adviser, however, has no such obligation. These are policymakers inside the White House who operate outside the constitutional system of checks and balances. With the creation of this new Department of Homeland Security, my concern--indeed, what should be the concern of every Member of this body--is that the Department and its Secretary will be used as decoys to divert the attention of the American public away from the White House's Office of Homeland Security and its Director, Tom Ridge. I speak with great respect for Tom Ridge, who happens to be the person in that position at this point. It could be ``Jack in the Beanstalk,'' or John, or Henry, or Robert--whatever. The White House has tried to shield that office. I know. Ted Stevens knows that. I know the White House has tried to shield that office from the Congress and the American public ever since its creation last year. Oh, they are willing to come up, yes. I heard from Tom Ridge. He was willing to come up and brief the members of the Appropriations Committee. Well, now, that is a way of getting around what the people desire. The people deserve something better. The people deserve to see these hearings. The Appropriations Committee has been created now since 1867. So for these 135 years, since its creation, that is the way it has been done. I know the other body apparently settled for that kind of thing but not our side; we are not going to settle for that. We will do it the way it has always been done--out there within public view, with the record being written, questions being asked, and the American people watching. The American people want answers to these questions, not just members of the Appropriations Committee. So it is the way it has been done for 135 years, and as long as I am chairman, that is the way it is going to be done. We are not going to settle for merely briefings. We can get that from lots of people. But title II of the Lieberman bill seeks to make the actions of a Homeland Security Office inside the White House more accessible and more accountable to the public. What we must strive to avoid is a White House Homeland Security Office--be it the Ridge office or John Doe's office or the one envisioned by the Lieberman substitute--that would act as a puppet-master for Homeland Security, pulling the strings of the new Department and its Secretary from behind a curtain of secrecy. That is why it is so important that the White House office, whatever its form, whoever its Director may be, be held accountable to the Congress and the American people. The head of that office must be a confirmable position, no matter what the President--any President--may say. After all, we hear that this battle, this war on terrorism, is going to go on for a long time. So I take ``a long time'' to mean beyond this year, beyond next year, beyond the next election, beyond the next 2 years. And who knows, we may have a different President in 2 years; we may have a Democratic President. Will I feel any differently? No, not one whit. No. The head of that office must be a confirmable position. If the war is going on for a long time, that position is going to be there a long time. That office will be there a long time, and it should be a confirmable position. If there is a Democratic President in office 2 years from now--and who knows. I do not know if I will be around or not. Only the Good Lord knows that. But whether I am around or not, that position, under a Democratic President or under a Republican President, should be confirmed by the United States Senate. He should be accountable to the American people, the people out there who are looking through those electronic lenses right up there, right now. He should be accountable to them. Mr. President, the men who drafted our Constitution carefully laid out a system of government that has worked remarkably well for more than two centuries. It began in 1789. The First Congress in 1789 was probably the most important Congress of any of the 107 Congresses we have had. There was no Congress before it to tackle those problems. That Congress took on great problems, and the Senate especially is to be credited with the formulation of the Judiciary Act, creating the judiciary. There we are, 1789. What would those signers of that Constitution think about the way we are running our Government today? Would they say to Robert Byrd: Senator Byrd, you should take your seat; there is no reason for that person to be confirmed; he should not be confirmed; we should accept at face value whatever President is in office, whether he is a Democrat or Republican. They would say: We did not have any political parties in our time, but you have them. You ought to just sit down and not worry. Leave it all to the President. If he is a Democratic President, leave it all to him. If he is a Republican President, leave it all to him. Leave it up to him. Trust him. Don't require that person to be confirmed. How many Senators would believe those men who signed that Constitution of the United States would say that? They would turn over in their graves, as we hear an expression often in our part of the woods. They would turn over in their graves to even contemplate such a thing. A major reason our Government has been so successful is that our Founding Fathers were wise and cautious people who had no naive expectations about human behavior. They understood human behavior. It has never changed. It is just like it was when Adam and Eve were in the garden, just as it was when Cain slew Abel. It does not change. That is why we have Saddam Hussein because human nature has not changed. Everybody loves power, and sometimes we get intoxicated with the power we have. That intoxication feeds on intoxication and power feeds on power. I would much rather believe that the American people were in the mix. I should think any President would want that to be the way: I have nothing to hide; let the American people see it. James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, had a shrewd view of human nature. He knew that those who achieved power too often tried to amass more power or, in other ways, misuse their power. ``If men were angels,'' he observed in Federalist 51, ``no government would be necessary.'' According to Madison, history showed that those in power often overreach; they want more. It is like that song: Give me more, more, more of your kisses. They want more, more, more power. According to Madison, history showed that those in power often overreach and, as a result, power too often can become located in a single person or a single branch of government, either of which is dangerous to liberty. That is what we are talking about, the liberty of the American people. We are not talking about the prerogatives of the Senate per se. They are prerogatives of the Senate by the Constitution, but it goes deeper than that. We are talking about the people's liberties. ``The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands,'' wrote Madison, ``may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.'' This very point was emphasized by none other than the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney, when as a Member of the House of Representatives, during a hearing by the Iran-Contra committee, he, Richard Cheney, lectured Oliver North saying, and I quote the now-Vice President: There is a long tradition in the Presidency of presidents and their staffs, becoming frustrated with the bureaucratic organizations they are required to deal with, to increasingly pull difficult positions or problems into the White House to be managed because there is oftentimes no sense of urgency at State or at Defense or any of the other departments that have to be worked with. . . . [P]roblems . . . that automatically lead presidents sooner or later to move in the direction of deciding that the only way to get anything done, to cut through the red tape, to be able to move aggressively, is to have it done, in effect, inside the boundary of the White House. That was now-Vice President Cheney back then. Is that what is going on now? I remember the concerns and issues raised by Members on the other side of the aisle when the Clinton administration's health care task force was forming its policies in secrecy. One Republican Senator, who is here today--not on the floor right at this time--denounced the Clinton administration for operating--and I quote the Senator--a ``shadow government, without accountability to the American people.'' That Senator went on to say that: All Americans should know what their Government is doing and how it is spending public funds. That is just the way we ought to do things in a democracy.'' While I do not agree this is a democracy--Senators know we do not pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States and to the democracy for which it stands. This is a republic. But that is neither here nor there. This Senator said that is just the way we ought to do things in a democracy. Well, I think that Senator was right. He was a Republican Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley. Another Republican Senator at that time, Senator Simpson, charged: The secrecy on the ongoing negotiations within the confines of the White House is a major concern of mine. . . . Health care is too important an issue to the American public to deliberate behind secretive walls of the White House. Well, Senator Simpson was right, too. I do not dispute those comments, but I do ask this: If health care is too important an issue to the American public to deliberate behind the secretive walls of the White House, then what about the challenges of protecting our Nation in this frightful new age of terrorism, and what of a White House that seeks broad new authorities without respect to the harm they may do to the people's liberties or to our system of government? What about an officer who has his hand in intelligence, health care, law enforcement, commerce, environmental protection, transportation, agriculture, all matters that fall under the broad rubric of homeland security? What of a White House officer who would be granted never-before-seen authorities to involve the U.S. military? Now get this, Mr. President, as you sit up there in that chair presiding over this august body. It is probably not very difficult to preside over when there are only three Senators in the Chamber. What of a White House officer who would be granted never-before-seen authorities to involve the U.S. military in any domestic matter that can be labeled ``homeland security''? What about that? Let me read that again. What of a White House officer who would be granted never-before-seen authorities to involve the U.S. military in any domestic matter that can be labeled ``homeland security''? That is enough to choke on, is it not? Give me a glass of water. My gosh, that is enough to choke on. That is more than a bone. We will find that more than a bone in one's throat. The White House is clearly seeking new and expanded roles for the military within our own borders. It has articulated as much in the homeland security plan the President released last July. The White House aims to provide broad authorities to the military as part of its national antiterrorism homeland security plan. That should give us all pause. I am certainly not to be equated in any sense with George Washington, but I think of George Washington who said, I have grown old and gray in my country's service; now I am growing blind. So in that sense I am a bit like George Washington. Now, when we are talking about the military, I am reading from the national strategy for homeland security. This is what it says, in part--these are major Federal initiatives. I will just pick out this one. It jumps out at me. Review authority for military assistance in domestic security. Federal law prohibits military personnel from enforcing the law within the United States except as expressly authorized by the Constitution . . . Oh, that word. How many of us have heard that word on television recently, the word ``constitution''? Let me read that again. Federal law prohibits military personnel from enforcing the law within the United States except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress. The threat of catastrophic terrorism requires a thorough review of the laws permitting the military to act within the United States in order to determine whether domestic preparedness and response efforts would benefit from greater involvement of military personnel and, if so, how. All right, Senators, see if you can swallow that one. Apparently, there is some thinking going on in certain circles, because this says so, that the threat--I will read this portion again: The threat of catastrophic terrorism requires a thorough review of the laws permitting the military to act within the United States in order to determine whether domestic preparedness and response efforts would benefit from greater involvement of military personnel and, if so, how. I say to Senators, beware. The Lieberman substitute includes language requiring the Director of the new National Office for Combating Terrorism, in consultation with the new Homeland Security Secretary, to develop a national strategy that would include ``plans for integrating the capabilities and assets of the United States military into all aspects of the Strategy.'' Let me read that to Senators. I read from the substitute by Mr. Lieberman. I read title III, section 301, the section entitled ``development,'' which says: The Secretary and the Director shall develop the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism and Homeland Security Response. Then it goes on and tells the responsibilities of the Secretary, and among those responsibilities I go down to the word ``contents,'' and then I go down to the fourth paragraph which reads as follows: Plans for integrating the capabilities and assets of the United States military into all aspects of the Strategy. Title III of the Lieberman bill talks about the Strategy. And so the Director and the Secretary together will develop the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism and Homeland Security Response. That is being done now in the White House by the Director, Tom Ridge, I would say undoubtedly. Senator Lieberman is trying to put--I have a little dog. I used to have a dog named Billy. I have a little dog now whose name is Trouble. My wife named him Trouble. She may have been looking at me when she named the dog. We put a little collar on that dog, and then I have a nice little chain that goes into the collar. That little dog might go astray if we did not have that collar on that sweet little dog. She has my wife and I around her two front paws. So when I take her out for a walk, she then would not run out on the street and get run over by a car. Senator Lieberman is seeking to put a collar on this office. He is seeking to put a chain on it, and for good reason. So Lieberman's substitute includes language requiring the Director--this is the chain in the collar--requiring the Director of the new national Office for Combating Terrorism, in consultation with the Homeland Security Secretary, to develop a national strategy that would include plans for integrating the capabilities and assets of the U.S. military and to all aspects of the strategy. The White House Homeland Security Director, Mr. Ridge, is under similar orders from the President. But at least, as I say, under the Lieberman plan, the Government official responsible for developing plans to mobilize U.S. troops within our own borders, if it comes to that, would be held accountable--and I hope it does not come to that--to the American public and the Congress. That is a critical difference. Certainly the American people should feel uncomfortable with the thought of government officials, hidden away inside of the White House, drawing up plans on how to insert the military into the homeland security efforts of our communities. Ours is a nation in which the streets of our small towns and large cities are patrolled by civil forces, not tanks and black hawk helicopters. Our policemen are accountable to locally elected leaders, not four-star generals in distant command centers. Our citizens are tried in courts of law, not secret military tribunals. We may, in an abstract sense, recognize the danger of a growing involvement of the military in civil affairs, but we do not seem to recognize that the wall between civil and military government may be eroding as we speak. It is imperative, therefore, to ensure that any White House officer who would be granted such broad powers--as, say, Mr. Ridge would be--to insert the military into ``all aspects'' of the homeland security strategy should also be made accountable to the people's representatives. I recognize the value of an Executive Office to coordinate homeland security efforts across the Federal Government. But there is also a need to ensure that any office with such long arms, so able to reach into the affairs of so many agencies, and with powers so sweeping that it can trim the liberties of the American people is, ultimately secured under the control of the people. Title II of the Lieberman bill attempts to respond to that need. The mere fact that White House advisors have quietly accumulated broad powers in the past is certainly no reason to allow a White House office with influence of this magnitude and without congressional oversight to go forward. We stand today in the swirl of unanswered questions about this administration's intent with regard to an unprovoked, preemptive attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq, the reasons for which have not yet been explained to Congress or the American people. Perhaps the White House has the answers to the questions that people are asking about why we may soon send our sons and daughters to fight, and perhaps die, in the sands of the Middle East, but thus far, we have encountered only a wall of secrecy at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue--a wall built on the pillars of Executive privilege. On the issue of homeland security, however, the lives at risk are not only of those who have chosen to serve our country in uniform. Homeland security is about protecting the lives of innocent civilians--men and women, children and grandparents--from terrorist attacks. The current administration is quite evidently eager to avail itself of every past precedent and every current day opening to hide its affairs from the public eye. If anything, we, the people's representatives, should be alarmed. If I were Paul Revere and had the lungs, brass lungs, if I could speak as thunder from the cloud in a storm, I would insist that any such powerful White House Homeland Security Office not be allowed to operate outside the reach of the American people. So I urge the Senate to refuse to be a party to erecting such a dangerous wall of secrecy between the people and their government. I urge the Senate to refuse to be a party to erecting such a dangerous wall of secrecy between the American people and the American Government, their Government. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Thompson amendment. So, Mr. President, here we are. We are talking--I am not sure we are debating it, but we are talking--about this massive piece of legislation that would constitute the greatest reorganization of the American Government since 1789--not since the Department of Defense was created, not since the National Security Act, but I think the greatest reorganization of Government and, it is certainly arguable, since 1787, when our constitutional forebears met in Philadelphia to create a new Constitution, a new Government under a new Constitution, while those men at Philadelphia were serving under the Constitution that then guided them, and that then obtained the Constitution under the Articles of Federation. That was the first Constitution, that was the first American Constitution. There were State constitutions, State constitutions in 13 States before that time. They reconstituted this Government. Not all of the delegates from the 13 States attended; Rhode Island did not think too much of the idea. But under that Constitution, and the new Constitution, the support and ratification by nine States would constitute enough, a sufficient number to adopt this new Constitution and create a new order of--a new order of the ages. ``Novus ordo seclorum,'' a new order of the ages. There it is, up there on the wall. They created it. ``Annuit coeptis.'' He has favored our undertakings. God. So they set forth a new order for the ages. They created anew, they reorganized this Government. That was the greatest reorganization ever. And there was the reorganization of the military that we have already talked about. And now we come along with this reorganization. But this is a far-reaching reorganization and this is a new Department. Senators will remember the first three Departments were the Department of State or foreign affairs, the Department of War, and the Department of the Treasury. And the first committees, the real committees of the Congress, were created in 1816--the permanent committees. And the Appropriations Committee, as I say, was created in 1867. But here we are. We are creating a new Department of Government. I have been here when several new Departments have been created. This will not be my first one, but this is the one which gives me greatest pause, the creation of this Department. I will not proceed to make a point of order against this amendment at this time. I am not the manager of this bill. I am not even on the committee that created it. But I still have the rights of any Senator, so I can make a point of order. But out of courtesy to the distinguished chairman of the committee and the distinguished ranking member, who certainly has listened to me and my concerns--and Ted Stevens and his concerns, our concerns with respect to the power of the purse--they have listened and they have given great consideration to our concerns in those regards--I will not make the point of order, as I indicated was available to me and I could have made, but I am not going to do that out of respect for them. They are managers of the bill, not I. But I must say I am very concerned, extremely concerned about this whole matter. I think the language that has been brought to the floor by Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Thompson is--I wouldn't say light years ahead, but it is certainly way ahead of the House bill. I only hope Senators will read the House bill so that they can see the legislation that pretty accurately reflects the administration's position with respect to this new Department. I am telling you, it will make your hair curl if you pay close attention to that language. I have some problems with this substitute, I have to say. But I will have opportunities as time goes on. I have an amendment which I will offer. I have more amendments than one, but I do have one I am going to offer within the next few days. I hope, may I say to the chairman and ranking member, that other Senators will come to the floor and discuss this amendment. I hope they will come to the floor and discuss this amendment. I hope they will read in the Record tomorrow morning what was said today and that they, too, will come to the floor. The people will profit by vigorous debate. I thank both Senators for their courtesies to me. I have great respect for them. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, throughout this debate--and there really hasn't been a lot of debate--there was talk about rushing this bill through and putting it on the President's desk before the August recess. Then there was kind of a fallback position in which it would be rushed through but it would be on the President's desk by 9/11, September 11. Neither of these efforts, as they appeared to be explained in the newspaper, was a very wise approach to dealing with such a very, very difficult, important--and I will use the word complex, which encompasses difficult as well, but I will add it to the sentence--piece of legislation. How many Senators are paying attention to what is being said on this very important legislation? We have on the floor the distinguished manager of the bill, the chairman of the committee which had jurisdiction over this legislation, and we have the ranking member. These two Senators are here at their posts of duty. How many other Senators are there? I see the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, in the Chair. And here is this middling upstart from West Virginia at this desk. So the deadline for completing this legislation by the beginning of the recess came and went, and the deadline of September 11 is going to come and go, but who is paying attention? My thought was that if Senators had the August recess, many of them would read this bill. What I mean by ``this bill,'' this bill is a House bill which was passed by the House after 2 days of floor debate--imagine that. Two days of floor debate. Why, it would take longer than that to get a sewer permit approved by the city council in many towns. And here we are passing a bill of this magnitude in 2 days by the other body and great pressure on this body, now, to act on this mammoth proposition, great pressure from the President, who is going up and down the country saying: Pass my bill. Pass my bill. Pass my bill. Then there are others from both sides who are willing to go along and really want to hurry through this legislation. But let me say in all candor that if we do not pass this bill until next year, this country is not going to go undefended at its borders, at its ports, at its airports. No. The same people who will be working in the agencies within the new Department, when it is created, are already out there right now. They are out there on the borders today. They were out there last night when you and I were sleeping. I take it that you slept a little bit. I got a fair amount of sleep. But they were out there protecting us. They are at the airports. We are not satisfied with the protection we are getting at the airports, but I don't know that this bill is going to improve that. But, in any event, what I am saying is that the very people who are going to be protecting the ports of entry, protecting the long borders to the north and to the south, protecting the seaports and the river ports, they are out there now. These are experienced people. These are those terrible Federal employees whose rights are about to be swept away under the administration's proposal. But under this bill they are being protected. That is not exactly the point I am making. The point I am trying to make is why the hurry? On the other hand, in looking about this Senate one would say: Why not? There is no interest in this bill. Senators are not at their desks. Look on that side: One Senator. Look on this side: Two Senators, and one in the Chair. I am not saying that in derogation of Senators. They are busy, very busy. Senators are on committees, they have people back home who are No. 1. This is the people's branch. They are busy. But how many Senators have read this bill? That is the key. If more Senators had read this bill than obviously have read it, I think we would have more Senators on both sides on the floor. The chairman and ranking member have given plenty of attention to this bill. They worked for days. Their staffs worked for days and far into the nights in developing this piece of legislation. So we have several Senators on both sides of the aisle who have read the bill and worked over it and they have far more expertise so far as this bill is concerned than I have. I am not on the committee that has jurisdiction over their legislation; what business do I have here? Well, I have the same business here that every other Senator on both sides of the aisle has, and I have been concerned about this legislation. I have read the House bill. I have read the Lieberman substitute. And I have read them both more than once--twice is more than once, so I read them at least twice, you can say--you can draw from that statement. But I read this bill. When I say ``this bill,'' I am talking about the House bill and the Lieberman substitute. The House bill is the underlying bill here--we all know that--and it can be amended, too. But the Thompson amendment is the amendment before the Senate right now, and it would strike title II and I believe it would strike title III as well; am I right?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4497

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

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I object.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Graham and Nelson of Florida.

Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend and colleague, the ranking member. This completes the series of amendments to which I alluded earlier.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I send, therefore, an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I have offered this amendment on behalf of the distinguished senior Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray. The amendment, as the clerk has read, would provide funds for the Vancouver National Historical Reserve in the State of Washington. The amendment has been fully offset and has been agreed to by both managers. I urge its adoption.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was adopted.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield before he makes that motion?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator has the floor and certainly has the right to make that motion. Would he mind, now that he has announced his intention, to go through a quorum call and get consent that once the quorum call is completed he retain his right to the floor? Certainly before he makes the motion other Senators may come; they will know. They will know from having heard this that business is moving and that we can't continue with the luxury of waiting until next week.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I do not wish to have the floor at this moment. It may be the distinguished Democratic whip will have need for the floor, or any other Senator for that matter. I yield my time back.