[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 116 (Friday, September 13, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8595-S8609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). Under the previous order, the 
hour of 12 noon having arrived, the Senate will now resume 
consideration of H.R. 5005, which the clerk will report by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5005) to establish the Department of Homeland 
     Security, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Lieberman amendment No. 4471, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Thompson/Warner amendment No. 4513 (to amendment No. 4471), 
     to strike title II, establishing the National Office for 
     Combating Terrorism, and title III, developing the National 
     Strategy for Combating Terrorism and Homeland Security 
     Response for detection, prevention, protection, response, and 
     recover to counterterrorist threats. (By 41 yeas to 55 nays 
     (Vote No. 214), Senate failed to table the amendment.)
       Lieberman amendment No. 4534 (to amendment No. 4513), to 
     provide for a National Office for Combating Terrorism, and a 
     National Strategy for Combating Terrorism and the Homeland 
     Security Response.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia is to be recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I do not expect to yield, except for 
questions. I have several thoughts with respect to the pending measure. 
I can speak at great length. Only the Lord can intervene and make that 
statement fall. But I don't expect to do that today.
  House Republicans yesterday criticized the majority leader and the 
managers of the bill, Senator Lieberman, for not moving quickly enough 
to pass legislation to create a new Homeland Security Department. They 
accuse the Senate Democratic leadership of endangering the country by 
not passing legislation.
  We are going to hear more and more of that. There is no excuse for 
not giving the people of this country a homeland security bill, said 
the Speaker of the House yesterday.
  Let me say again what the Speaker of the House yesterday said: There 
is no excuse for not giving the people of this country a homeland 
security bill.
  What a flimsy argument, with all due respect, and I have great 
respect for the Speaker. I know the rules of the Senate and the House. 
I am not going to go beyond that quotation in referring to what the 
Speaker of the House said. I am not going to go beyond that to in any 
way appear, in any way, and I do not now appear, even presume; I don't 
want anyone to presume or to assume or to interpret what I say as any 
personal criticism of the Speaker of the House of Representatives. But 
what a flimsy argument. We are going to hear that argument; we are 
going to hear it from other people. It will not be long in coming, if 
it has not already been expressed by others. But worse than flimsy is 
the kind of argument we ought not be making. It is an empty argument. 
It is shallow. That kind of argument cannot stand up under its own 
weight, that there is no excuse for not giving the people of this 
country a homeland security bill.

  Let us be clear about a few things. Neither the House bill nor the 
President's proposal would create any new agencies. They are proposing 
only to move existing agencies from one Department to another. The 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Customs Service, the Coast 
Guard, all of these agencies currently exist. They are operating. They 
are funded. And the people are out there working day and night. These 
agencies have been working around the clock since the terrorist attacks 
last year on September 11. They have been out there working. They were 
on the borders. They were patrolling the U.S. waterways last night, the 
night before, and the night before that, and in all of the nights that 
have occurred, beginning on September 11, and before.
  Whether or not we create a new Homeland Security Department, and 
regardless of when we do it, these same agencies will continue to 
protect our homeland. The funds are there. The funds are being used. 
The people are there on the job. So do not have any concern about that. 
They are not absent their protest and they are not empty handed. They 
are not empty handed. They are working.
  Now, we must be careful about how we create this Department. And I 
want to create this Department of Homeland Security; I want to create a 
Department of Homeland Security. But I am not one who wants to debate 
the bill on the Senate floor for 2 days and vote on it. That is what 
the House did, the other body. They have their own rules. I have been a 
Member, many years ago. I say ``many;'' many in the context of the 
ordinary lifetime of many years ago. They have their rules. I don't 
criticize that at all. They can operate fast. The House can operate 
quickly, they can operate fast, and so can the Senate, as we did last 
year when we passed an appropriations bill within 3 days of the fall of 
the towers, the Twin Towers. We passed an appropriations bill within 3 
days, a bill appropriating $40 billion.
  The Senate can act fast, too. But thank God, the Senate has different 
rules from the rules of the other body. And that is no criticism of the 
rules of the other body. But why the hurry? Why pass a bill in 2 
days? Why should the Senate not take a little time and discuss this? 
The people are out there. Our security people are at their posts. They 
have been funded. As a matter of fact, the Senate has passed bills 
coming out of the Appropriations Committee, chaired by me and with the 
ranking member, Mr. Ted Stevens, a former chairman of that committee, 
and all of the members acting unanimously--Republicans and Democrats 
alike. We have provided funds, more funds than the President has been 
willing to sign into law. We sought to provide $2.5 billion in a bill. 
All the President needed was to sign his name. That was all he needed. 
Two point five billion more would have been available--for what? For 
homeland security. And the President had 30 days in which to sign that 
measure into law. He refused to sign it into law. So who is in a hurry?

[[Page S8596]]

  The real threat to the American people is that by transferring 22 
agencies and 122,000 employees to this new Department, all at once we 
will throw our homeland security efforts into a state of chaos and 
therefore make the country even more susceptible to a terrorist attack. 
What is more, if we are not careful about how we create this Department 
and the authorities that we grant to this new Department with regard to 
its intelligence and law enforcement powers, we could do irreparable 
harm to the constitutional liberties of the American people.
  For this reason, 26 leaders of nationally prominent conservative 
organizations have urged the Senate to exercise--and I use quotes--
``restraint, caution, and deeper scrutiny before hastily granting 
unnecessary powers to a homeland security bureaucracy.''
  Let me say that again: 26 leaders of nationally prominent 
conservative organizations have urged the Senate to exercise 
``restraint, caution, and deeper scrutiny before hastily granting 
unnecessary powers to a homeland security bureaucracy.''
  I say to those who would say there is no excuse for not giving the 
people of this country a homeland security bill: Don't push this 
Senate. Don't push it. The Senate will act in due time. Don't push this 
Senate. Back off. Don't push this Congress as a whole into unwise and 
hasty decisions that would make this country even more vulnerable to 
another terrorist attack.
  That attack can happen right now, later today, tonight. Why should we 
hurry in acting on this particular measure? The people are out there. 
The people in the agencies, the Customs, the Coast Guard, the 
Naturalization and Immigration Service, at the ports of entry into this 
country, at the river ports, at the seaports, food inspectors, the 
health officials, the firemen, the policemen--they have been there. We 
have done our part, up to this point, by funding those agencies that 
provide security to the country, to the nuclear facilities, along the 
border. We have funded them. We have provided more funds than the 
President himself has been willing to sign a bill for. They have been 
there. He had days to sign that bill, but he didn't do it. Now the hue 
and cry is: Pass this bill, the homeland security bill.
  The House of Representatives passed it in 2 days. That is all right; 
their rules will allow them to do that. But I say to the leadership in 
the House, and to the leadership down at the other end of this avenue: 
Don't push the Senate. Don't push the Congress into unwise and hasty 
decisions that would make this country more vulnerable to another 
terrorist attack. Don't push the American people. Don't push the 
American people, I say, as I look through those electronic eyes, the 
lenses there. Don't push those people into handing over their civil 
liberties.

  Now, pay attention. Not much attention has been paid thus far to my 
expression of concerns about this hasty action on this legislation. But 
don't push the American people into handing over their civil liberties 
in the name of homeland security. And some debate on this bill--when I 
say this bill, the House bill or the Lieberman substitute--debate will 
surface, will open the eyes of the American people and the eyes of 
Senators, to the threat of eroding the liberties of the American 
people.
  Don't risk eroding the liberties of the American people. It doesn't 
sound like passing a homeland security bill would do all that, does it? 
It has an innocent sounding name, a good name. But let's take a look at 
the bill. Read closely the bill. Don't push the American people into 
handing over their civil liberties in the name of homeland security.
  Everybody understands when our Nation is put on a wartime footing, we 
have to put certain limits on ourselves. But take a look at this bill. 
Take a look at the bill. Don't risk eroding the liberties of the 
American people and lead the public to believe this proposal is a 
panacea for homeland defense. That is what the administration is 
pressing for. That is what those who are pressing the Senate are 
pressing for when they argue that the Senate is endangering the 
security of the American people by not quickly passing the President's 
proposal. I believe that the administration and others who take that 
position have lost sight of the real goal here, which is not a Homeland 
Security Department but a more secure homeland.
  The President and his administration seem more concerned with scoring 
a political victory, maybe, than whether a Homeland Security Department 
will actually work and will actually protect the American people from 
another terrorist attack.
  My interpretation of what is being done is--I have to say that I can 
be wrong, too. Perhaps I am putting the wrong interpretation on it. 
Perhaps the President is not more concerned with scoring a political 
victory than whether the Homeland Security Department will actually 
protect the American people from another terrorist attack. I don't want 
to read it that way. I don't want to misinterpret it. I don't want to 
see the President as doing that, or feeling that way about it. I don't 
want to even assume that is his motivation. But that is the motivation 
of some. That is the motivation of some.
  Forty-one Senators opposed the Thompson amendment to strike titles II 
and III from the Lieberman substitute. Yet there is only one Senator on 
the floor defending those titles. I did not draft the language. Yet I 
am the only one fighting for it. I am the only one fighting at the 
moment to retain titles II and III of the bill. I will have something 
to say about those titles at some point.
  When I say titles II and III, I am talking about the Lieberman 
proposal. Let me briefly explain what my amendment does so those who 
are listening will understand that my amendment is not seriatim to the 
bill that has been introduced by Senator Lieberman. My amendment only 
goes to title I of that bill. There are 24 titles to the bill. My 
amendment only goes to title I of Mr. Lieberman's bill. I am not yet 
addressing the House bill. That is far worse. The House bill is really 
a poison pill.
  Mr. Lieberman's bill has 24 titles listed. My amendment only goes to 
title I.
  Mr. Lieberman's proposal has encompassed in the bill that was 
reported by the committee a Department of Homeland Security. I am for 
that. My amendment does not do otherwise in support of a Department of 
Homeland Security.
  The Lieberman proposal provides for a Secretary. My amendment 
provides for a Secretary.
  The Lieberman proposal provides for a Deputy Secretary. My amendment 
provides for a Deputy Secretary.
  The Lieberman proposal provides for seven Under Secretaries. My 
proposal provides for seven Under Secretaries.
  The Lieberman proposal provides for five Assistant Secretaries in 
title I. My amendment provides for five Assistant Secretaries in title 
I.
  The Lieberman proposal proposes six directorates. My proposal 
provides for six directorates in title I.
  There is another directorate provided for in title XI. I don't touch 
that at the moment. My amendment does not touch that. We are only 
talking about title I in my amendment.
  Thus far, the same superstructure that is provided for by Mr. 
Lieberman is provided by the amendment which I have introduced--the 
same thing; no change; nothing different about that.
  The Lieberman proposal provides for a huge transaction here, which 
Mr. Lieberman has told me involves 28 agencies and offices. We have 
heard the figure 22 bandied around here. I have seen those all over the 
press. I accepted that figure for a while, until I asked Mr. Lieberman 
how many agencies are we really talking about. He said: I have counted 
them, and I count 28 agencies and offices, and 170,000 Federal workers 
being transferred to this Department.
  I don't say anything criticizing Mr. Lieberman's bill. I am comparing 
my amendment in certain respects with the bill which was reported by 
the Senate committee which Mr. Lieberman chairs and of which Mr. 
Thompson is ranking member.
  That bill provides for all this huge transaction--all of this 
movement of people, all of this shifting around of people in the 
agencies, or among the agencies in which they are presently working. 
And it provides for all this to be done--for these agencies to be 
shifted into the new Department.
  Their letterheads will probably change. Their telephone numbers will 
probably change. The offices in which they serve today may or may not

[[Page S8597]]

change. They may be moved up Pennsylvania Avenue to a new place. They 
may have to move their desks and their telephones and their computer 
systems. Their culture will change. They may not have the same 
associates. They may not be located in the same location. Their 
telephone numbers may be changed. Their missions may be changed. Their 
assignments may be changed. Their objectives, overall, may be changed. 
We have seen the objectives of the FBI, for example, change since the 
September 11 attacks.
  Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Just in a moment, if I may, and then I will yield.
  They are undergoing all of these changes. This will all be done 
within a period of 13 months following the signing by the President of 
the act. Thirteen months after that act becomes law, all this will be 
completed. My amendment does not change that calendar date as to when 
this massive transaction will be completed.
  My amendment provides that at the end of the 13 months this is 
envisioned as to be done the same way, the same thing--not the same 
way, but the same time period over all. Thirteen months occurs with 
respect to the Lieberman bill and with respect to my amendment, if my 
amendment is adopted--the same time period, 13 months.
  So what is the difference? Under the bill, the committee bill, once 
the Senate passes whatever it passes, and that is sent to conference, 
and it comes back, and it is signed into law, Congress is out of it 
except with respect to the appropriations that will go forward to the 
agency, to the new Department. When the Senate passes this bill and 
sends it to conference, for all purposes of amending that process in 
the Senate, it is over. When it goes to conference, whatever comes back 
from the conference between the two Houses--the Republican-controlled 
House and the Democratic-controlled Senate--whatever comes back from 
that conference is it.
  We have one more--one more--chance, and that is in voting up or down 
on that conference report. When that conference report comes back to 
the Senate, it may not even look like the bill that passed the Senate. 
Ha, ha, ha. Now, Senators, you may have an entirely different breed of 
legislation on this bill when it comes back. It is there. You can vote 
it up or down. But, Senators, you will not be able to offer any 
amendments to that conference report. You can vote it down, you can 
vote it up, but you cannot change it.
  It may be virtually an entirely new proposition. Who knows what the 
conferees will agree to. Senators, you are having your last chance here 
when we vote, eventually, on this bill, if we do.
  So why, why, why should Senators just roll over and play dead, as it 
were; perhaps come to the floor, make a short speech--of 10 minutes, 15 
minutes--in support of the bill, or a short speech in opposition to it? 
Why should Senators have to do that within the next week, let's say, or 
2 weeks or 3 weeks? Why should Senators have to do that before a new 
Congress sits in January?
  Let me repeat, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the 
Customs Service, the Coast Guard, other existing agencies that provide 
security to our country and to us--all of these agencies currently 
exist. The agencies have been working around the clock since the 
terrorist attacks last year. They were on the borders. They were 
patrolling U.S. waterways.
  Whether or not we create a new Department of Homeland Security in 
September, whether or not we create a Department of Homeland Security 
in October, whether or not we create a Department of Homeland Security 
in November, whether or not we create a Department of Homeland Security 
in December, these same agencies will continue to protect our homeland.
  Now, back to my amendment, and then, shortly, I will yield to the 
Senator for a question.
  What is the difference between the bill, then, and my amendment? I 
have already said as to the superstructure, as to the overall time 
period of 13 months, we are in lockstep, we are in lockstep with Mr. 
Lieberman and his committee.
  Now, here is the difference. Here comes the difference: Remember, 
this is all to be done within 13 months. Under the Lieberman committee 
proposal, once this bill that is before the Senate--once whatever the 
Senate passes, and it is concurred in by both Houses--whatever package 
is sent to the President, and he signs it, these things are going to 
take place.
  We are going to do it in the same period of time, but under the Byrd 
amendment, all of this chaotic happening is not going to occur at once. 
We are not going to pass the bill and send it to the President and say: 
Now, Mr. President, it's all yours. We're going to step off to the 
sideline. Congress is not going to have any more part in it. We have 
passed the bill. It sets up the new Department by legislation. It deals 
with 22 or 28 or 30--that many--agencies and offices. So here it is. 
Here is the bill. Here is our bill. It's yours. Under the Lieberman 
approach, it's yours. You have 13 months to do it in. Have at it. Good 
luck. Good luck, Mr. President. Here's the package. It's all yours.
  Can Senators imagine the chaos that will occur in trying to do all of 
this in a way that is other than systematic and orderly?
  My amendment provides an orderly process whereby on February 3--if 
the amendment is included in the act--on February 3, the Secretary of 
the new Department would send up his recommendations as to what 
agencies, what functions, what assignments, and so on, would need to be 
carried out to complete the flushing out of this skeleton, of putting 
into effect the establishment of the first directorate.
  Remember, I said that there were directorates in the Lieberman bill. 
There are Directorates in the Byrd amendment.
  The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Defense, the new 
Department--which will be established by this law, if it becomes law--
the Secretary sends up his policies, his recommendations as to what 
agencies shall go into this new Directorate. That is on February 3.
  The recommendations of the Secretary will be sent to the committee in 
the Senate and the committee in the House that have jurisdiction over 
this subject matter. Mr. Lieberman's committee and Mr. Thompson's 
committee, their committee will still be in the mix. Their committee 
will still be front and center.
  Under my amendment, we are not going to say: OK, Mr. President, here 
it is. Have a good time. Good luck to you. Enjoy what you are doing. We 
are just going to move off to the side.
  Our committee is going to say: All right, we have a department. We 
are going to create this first directorate. We are going to have this 
new Secretary of Homeland Defense send up his policy recommendations to 
the House and Senate. They will be referred to the committees of 
jurisdiction, Mr. Lieberman's committee in the Senate, and his 
counterpart committee in the House. And those committees will take 
these policy recommendations that have been sent up by the Secretary of 
the Department of Homeland Security, and they will treat those as 
recommendations for a bill.
  They will look over those policies. They will debate them in the 
committee. They will report, ultimately, a bill which accepts the 
policies or which amends those policies.
  There will be, in my concept, an expedited procedure where that bill 
does not just go through the committee and lie there. But within 120 
days after the policies have been sent to the Congress by the 
Secretary, the Secretary then, 120 days later, or on June 3, would be 
required to send up his recommendations for fleshing out the next two 
directorates which are named in Mr. Lieberman's bill also.
  The second proposal, there will be the Directorate of Intelligence 
and the Directorate of Critical Infrastructure Protection. Those 
directorates are named in the Lieberman bill.
  But we say, now, the first directorate that we will deal with will be 
the directorate of Border and Transportation Protection. All of these 
directorates are the same directorates as are provided for in the 
Lieberman bill. But we are saying that the first directorate to be 
decided upon and to be fleshed out will be the Directorate of Border 
Transportation and Protection.
  That is February 3. So there is 120 days for action to be taken in 
moving those agencies that are involved in the

[[Page S8598]]

Directorate of Border and Transportation Protection into the 
Department. One hundred twenty days later, June 3, the Secretary will 
send up his recommendations for the Directorate of Intelligence and for 
the Directorate of Critical Infrastructure Protection; 120 days later, 
or October 1, the Secretary would send up his recommendations. And in 
each of these three phases, Mr. Lieberman's committee would take the 
recommendations of the Secretary. And in each, the Lieberman committee 
will report to the Senate a bill containing the recommendations of the 
Secretary. They may have been amended in the committee. They may have 
been modified somewhat. But Mr. Lieberman's committee would then report 
that and so would the House committee report that bill to their 
respective houses, and then the respective houses would take up the 
bill under expedited procedures, as I conceive it, expedited 
procedures. So there could be no filibuster.
  That committee can be discharged from the bill. If the committee 
cannot report the bill, the committee will be discharged, and it will 
come to the full body, in the House or in the Senate, whichever is 
having a problem.

  So we have three phases, each phase of 4 months. The first phase will 
take a look at that, the committee does, the Senate does. There you go, 
you have a directorate in being, one directorate, the agencies, the 
number of people that will be moved into that particular directorate, 
that will be going forward.
  When it comes time, on June 3, for us to take a look at the policies, 
at the recommendations sent by the Secretary ensuring the next two 
directorates, we will have the advantage of seeing the mistakes, seeing 
the errors, seeing the faults, seeing the shortcomings of the way these 
agencies were moved into the first directorate. So we profit by staying 
in the mix. Congress profits, and the people represented by the 
Congress profit.
  Perhaps I should not use the word ``profit.'' They ``benefit'' from 
the experience in fleshing out that first directorate. Then comes along 
the second and third directorates, every 4 months, and the same thing 
happens. And then the fourth and fifth directorates come along 4 months 
later, and the same thing obtains. The recommendations go to the two 
committees. They are reported out under expedited procedures. Each 
House would be required to go to the measure under expedited 
procedures, and it is passed.
  Congress stays in the mix. Why Congress? Because Congress is made up 
of the elected, directly elected, not sent here by any electoral 
college but directly elected by the people of Arkansas or the people of 
Minnesota or West Virginia. So Congress stays in the mix.
  It is phased. There is an orderly process of doing what Mr. Lieberman 
wants to do and over the same time period. So we come out at the end, 
13 months; we have created this Department that Mr. Lieberman creates. 
We have created six of the seven directorates that Mr. Lieberman's bill 
creates, and we have set up the superstructure. We have appointed the 
same number of directors, the same number of Secretaries, the same 
number of under secretaries, the same number of assistant secretaries--
all of it.
  We take Mr. Lieberman's proposal, but we say we won't just turn it 
over to the administration the day after it is passed. We will go off 
fishing, if it is summertime, or perhaps we can go play golf. We will 
just quit. That is the responsibility of the administration, his bill 
says.
  Mine says, oh, no. No. That is the responsibility of Congress and the 
administration--Congress working with the administration; the 
administration working with Congress in an orderly process. The people 
in 28 agencies won't have to be moving their desks all at once. It will 
be some now; 4 months later, some more; 4 months later, the rest.
  What's wrong with that? That provides an orderly process. Madam 
President, I think at this point I have explained enough of what my 
amendment does to yield to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota for 
a question. We will have plenty of opportunity later to explain what my 
amendment does. I want people to go home this weekend to know what my 
amendment does. That is it in a nutshell.
  I don't claim to be a medicine man. I don't claim to be a magician. I 
don't say watch what is in my right hand and don't watch what the left 
hand is doing. It is there. This is it.
  Yesterday, included in the Congressional Record was a brief statement 
explaining the amendment. I also tried to explain it on the floor 
today. I have been up all night and the night before with my wife in 
the hospital. I sat right in her room all night, watching her and 
reading my Constitution again. It is a little hard to make things quite 
come together as one would like when one has lost sleep. I merely 
mention that so that everybody will know that I have tried to explain 
the purpose of my amendment, but not under the best conditions.
  I yield now to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota for a 
question only, retaining my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Baucus). The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia, 
whose explanation has been very clear--last night and also today. I 
trust the Senator's amendment comes from wisdom gained from many years 
of watching executive branch organizations, new departments brought 
together, and, of course, the Senator has the sweep of history both in 
this institution, and also I recall hearing the Senator last week quote 
a Roman, and I must confess a week later, whose name and statement I 
have forgotten, but which the Senator has remembered for all these 
years. It was something to the effect that reorganizations are just 
another way of delaying and confusing matters.
  I wonder if the Senator can share some of that experience gained and 
the insight into other organizations or reorganizations of Federal 
agencies, and how that might have suggested some of the oversight that 
the Senator has in his amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very dedicated, patriotic, able, 
and distinguished Senator for the diligence with which he pursues his 
responsibilities as a U.S. Senator. I appreciate very much what he has 
said with reference to me. Those remarks are very flattering. They 
might, if left alone, appear to be more than exactly the fact. I don't 
have a lot of experience, but I have seen some departments created 
during my tenure. I remember the new Department of Health, Education 
and Welfare, I believe it was called. I remember I was here and voted 
for that Department; the new Department of Energy, I voted for that; 
the new Department of Education, I voted for that; the new Department 
of Veterans Affairs, I voted for that.
  Now, as to reorganizations, I can take a look at recent experience as 
to reorganizations. The administration, since the September 11 attacks, 
has announced at least 3 major governmental reorganizations prior to 
the President's proposal to create a new Homeland Security Department.

  Last December, in response to numerous media reports criticizing the 
Nation's porous borders, the administration proposed the consolidation 
of the Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
within the Justice Department. Last March, following the mailing of two 
student visas by the INS to two of the September 11 hijackers 6 months 
after they crashed planes into the World Trade Center Towers, the 
administration announced that the INS, the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, would be reorganized--split into a services 
bureau and a separate enforcement bureau.
  Last May, following the reports about intelligence failures by the 
FBI, the administration announced a reorganization of the FBI. These 
reorganizations have either produced very little, or they have been 
replaced by subsequent additional reorganization proposals. It is as if 
we are spinning around in circles, with little left to show for all of 
the energy that we have expended, little left but dizziness. To avoid a 
similar fate of this new department, which I support--I am not opposed 
to creating a new Department of Homeland Security. As a matter of fact, 
I urged that months ago.
  The story behind that, which I recounted more than once, about the 
efforts of Senator Stevens and myself to have Tom Ridge, the Director 
of Homeland Security, which was created by

[[Page S8599]]

Presidential Executive order--not by statute--come up and testify 
before the Senate Appropriations Committee on the budget, on the 
homeland security agency's budget, he would not come. I have gone 
through that ad nauseam, time and time again. I may go through it 
again.
  Right now, it is sufficient to say that we had an unfortunate 
experience there. So I suggested that we have the Homeland Security 
Director be a person appointed by the President, and with the consent 
of the Senate, requiring Senate confirmation of that position, that 
officer. I recommended that, and we could not get him to come by 
invitation, the President having put his foot down hard and in 
concrete, being immovable, claiming that ``this is my staff person, 
this is my adviser. He is not required to go up there.'' Well, with all 
of the responsibilities and the authorities that were being assumed or 
carried out by the new Homeland Security Director, Mr. Ridge--he was 
going all over the country speaking to chambers of commerce, explaining 
his work and the things we were doing and the things we needed to do to 
secure our homeland--he would appear anywhere, anytime, apparently, 
because I read of many of his appearances around the country.
  Each time I read about his being here, there, or out in Montana, or 
wherever, I thought: Why can't he come up before the people's branch 
and tell the people's representatives what he wants, what he needs, 
what this country needs, what the people need for their security and 
safety? Why doesn't he come before the elected representatives of the 
people? Oh, yes, he is an adviser to the President, but the President 
has lots of them. He is on the staff of the President, yes. But this 
man is carrying a much larger bag of responsibilities than the ordinary 
staff person, the ordinary adviser to the President.
  I know the President has to have advisers to whom he can talk. They 
do not need to come before Congress. I told the administration: Look, 
we are not going to ask Mr. Ridge, your Homeland Security Director, who 
was appointed pursuant to a Presidential order--we are not going to ask 
him about his private conversations with the President. We are not 
interested.
  We want to ask this man, who is the point man for the administration 
on homeland security--he is the person who is running around telling 
everybody what it is. He is the man running around all over the country 
spilling his beans to this agency, that agency, whatever agency, 
whatever committee or whatever group of people, fraternal order or 
civic order, whatever it might be--he is the man running all over the 
country talking to the people everywhere and going up to Canada. He is 
the man who has gone down to Mexico and talked about various and sundry 
subjects pertaining to border controls, surely, and so on.
  Why can't he come to Jenkins Hill, on which this great architectural 
structure has been for 200 years or thereabouts? Why can't he come here 
and answer questions by the people's elected representatives in the 
Congress? After all, it is the people's money. He is being paid out of 
the pockets of the American people, this Mr. Ridge is. Pennies do not 
fall from heaven. He is being paid by the taxpayers, and the President 
is being paid by the taxpayers. Who pays him?
  He says this man cannot come up, this man does not have to go up to 
Congress. That is the President talking. Who pays him? The people. The 
people. Who pays us? The people. So the people are entitled to know a 
little about this, about how their moneys are being spent.
  That is why we have public hearings in the Appropriations Committee 
and by the subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee. The hearings 
are in public. The hearings are open. There can be a huge audience out 
there in some of those massive, handsome rooms over in the Senate 
office buildings. People can hear. They can see on television. They can 
hear over the radio. They can hear their people, their representatives, 
and they can hear the President's man, all of us being paid by the 
people, some of us being elected by the people.
  But some of those who testify are not elected by the people. Tom 
Ridge is not elected by the people; he has not been elected by the 
people, except to run as Governor of Pennsylvania and run for 
membership in the other body, which he has done. He has been Governor 
of Pennsylvania. He has been a Member of the other body of the 
Congress. So he is a man who knows a great deal about the subject 
matter, and he has thrown himself into his work. He is the expert. He 
knows the answers to a lot of these questions. He is a very intelligent 
man, a very articulate person. He is the person in charge.
  Why shouldn't the Congress hear him? They said: We will be happy to 
send him up for briefings. He can meet with Senators and House Members 
and have little briefings, and we can tell you all about it. That is 
not the point. His portfolio is much greater than the portfolio of an 
average staff person of the President or an ``adviser'' to the 
President.
  He is dealing with a subject that is virtually brand new to the 
American people. Last September 11 brought to the view of the American 
people something we had not seen before, something we had not 
experienced before, and opened to all of us a new kind of world, and 
the world is changed forever. Our country in some ways is changed 
forever. Every person in this country--man, woman, boy, or girl--their 
life is changed forever. It is not going to be a short time. The 
President himself has said this war--they call it a war; it is a 
different kind of war--this war is going to last a long time. It is 
going to take us a long time.

  Does anyone think we are going to get all the terrorists ever? No. We 
have not even gotten Bin Laden yet. We do not know where he is. He may 
be alive; he may not be alive. But whether he is alive or not, his 
agents are spread, we hear, in 60 countries or more. This is something 
big, and it affects our lives, it affects our work in the Senate.
  Why shouldn't the person who is the top man in the United States with 
reference to homeland security appear before a Senate committee, the 
Appropriations Committee? We are not seeking to put him on the spot or 
to embarrass the President by some question, such as: Tell me about 
your private conversations with your President. We are not going to do 
that.
  The Senate Appropriations Committee has been in business for 135 
years. This committee was established in 1867. Think of that. Two years 
after the Civil War ended--1867. Fifty percent, or more--a very high 
percentage--a great majority of some of our students in the polls do 
not know when the Civil War ended; they do not know that it even 
occurred in this country.
  But we know that in 1867 this Appropriations Committee in the Senate 
was established. Before that, the Finance Committee in the Senate, 
which had been established in 1816, did the appropriations work, as 
well as raising taxes, and so on. In 1867, the Finance Committee did 
that work no longer. Seven Members of the Senate were appointed to this 
new Appropriations Committee. I believe it was seven Members. In any 
event, the Appropriations Committee has been doing business ever since.
  The way we have done business is the right way. We get testimony; we 
get people to appear before the subcommittees. There are 13 
subcommittees of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and every one of 
those subcommittees has subpoena power in that Appropriations 
Committee. That committee has subpoena power--the Appropriations 
Committee. No wonder everyone wants on the Appropriations Committee.
  That Appropriations Committee deals with the public purse, and by 
virtue of this Constitution, the power of the purse is vested in the 
legislative branch. Article I, section 9, of this Constitution, which I 
hold in my hand, vests the power of the purse in this body. So the 
right way to do it is to have public hearings.
  The people need to know what questions are asked. The people need to 
know what answers are being given.
  It is out there. Everybody can see it. Everybody can hear it. There 
is a record of it.
  Then when the appropriations bill is put together, the testimony of 
these witnesses is read again. There are hearings printed. Hearings 
will be available to members of the Appropriations Committee of what 
was said during the testimony by Mr. Ridge, if he had come before the 
committee. And when the bill is taken up on the floor, there are

[[Page S8600]]

the printed hearings. They are available. There is a committee report--
aha, a committee report on that bill--for the benefit of the Senators 
who are to vote on the bill.
  That committee report is important. It is really laughable that the 
administration would propose that they would be willing to send up this 
man, who is the know-all, as far as anyone can know, about homeland 
security and what is being done by our Government, or what we hope to 
do--So the American people need to know that. The committee needs to 
know that. But he is going to come up in a private briefing? That is 
the administration's proposal: No, we will not let him come up there 
and get before that committee. No, no, no. He is the President's man. 
We are not going to let him come up. You do not call Condoleezza Rice. 
He is in the same position.
  No, he is not. You cannot equate the one with the other in this 
respect.
  So the committee is going to write a report. How important is a 
committee report? Suppose there is a court case at some point with 
respect to a provision in a bill. One of the things the court would 
need to know is what was said in the committee. In order to get the 
intention of the legislators, in order for the court to interpret the 
intention of the legislators with respect to that particular bill or 
that particular provision, the court may want to resort to a committee 
report. That has happened before in this country.
  What committee report is going to be around where we have a shadow 
government, as it were, with the administration officials coming up to 
the Senate and talking in private, behind closed doors? Oh, the doors 
can be open, that is all right, but there is no record. The people out 
there do not see what is going on. What kind of government is that?
  This is an open government--it is supposed to be--with respect to its 
appropriations, with respect to our bills. How utterly foolish the 
administration was to take that utterly foolish position in refusing to 
allow Tom Ridge to come before the Appropriations Committee of the 
Congress. That was utterly foolish. It poisoned the well.
  The result was a provision which Senator Stevens and I wrote into an 
appropriations bill providing that the Director of Homeland Security 
would indeed require confirmation by the Senate of the United States, 
and that appropriations bill came before the Senate not too long ago. 
Not one finger was raised against it. Not one Senator rose to strike 
that language from the bill.
  It was in the bill. Everybody knew it. The staff of every Senator saw 
it. They knew it, or they should have known it. Not one effort was made 
to remove it. That overall appropriations bill passed the Senate, 
including that provision, by a vote of 71 to 22--quite a secure 
majority, 71 to 22. I will try to remember that. That bill was passed, 
including that provision.
  I say to the distinguished senior Senator from Montana who presides 
today, that bill passed the Senate by a vote of 71 to 22, and went to 
conference.

  Oh, wait a minute. The administration suddenly sees on the horizon, 
here comes this bill, here comes this provision. Oh, Mr. Director, Mr. 
Tom Ridge, you know the Senate has--here it is right here, this 
appropriations bill. They are going to make you come up there. They are 
going to make you come up there.
  Mr. President, look at this bill here. The Senate is going to make 
this man come before the Senate of the United States in the 
Appropriations Committee. The President will not be able to say, well, 
he is an adviser of mine; he cannot come. The President will not be 
able to put his feet in concrete and say, this man is on my staff and 
my staff people do not have to come.
  Mr. President, it is in this bill. I do not care what you say. You 
can veto the bill, if you want to. Do you want to veto that 
appropriations bill? Do you want to veto that appropriations bill 
because it has that provision? Then you will have to explain to the 
American people why you will not let this man go before the 
Appropriations Committee of the Senate and answer questions of interest 
to the American people, questions dealing with their money, the money 
they pay in taxes to pay your salary, Mr. President, and to pay your 
salary, Mr. Ridge.
  Oh, you cannot hide behind that desk any longer. That part of the 
shadow government just will not work any longer because this 
legislation is going to require you to have that man of yours come up 
there.
  And you know what happened? Then down in the subterranean caverns, in 
the ill-lighted recesses of the bowels of the White House, four solemn 
individuals met one day and there was hatched the egg to provide the 
homeland security proposal. There was the egg. I do not care how warm 
the egg is, it still takes it 3 weeks to hatch. Try it sometime--3 
weeks. But it did not take 3 weeks for that egg to hatch, not in that 
White House.
  The administration wanted to get out front on this provision that was 
in the appropriations bill, written in there by Senators Byrd and 
Stevens and supported by every member of that Appropriations Committee 
and not questioned by any Member of the Senate.
  It is on its way to conference, Mr. President. I tell you, we have to 
act quickly, and the President did act quickly. They came out and 
unveiled this great proposal that came to life like Minerva who sprang 
full grown and fully armed from the forehand of Jove. That is how it 
came about.
  Then there was Aphrodite who sprang from the ocean foam and was 
carried by a seashell or a leaf to a nearby island and then went on to 
Mount Olympus and appeared before the gods, and the gods were overcome 
by the beauty of Aphrodite. All of that happened. And the same way with 
this egg that hatched, it just sprang into being all of a sudden and 
here it was, this massive proposal by the President. He unveiled it, 
and they were quite successful in taking the people's eyes away from 
some of the other things that were demanding attention in the 
newspapers of the time. They took those things off the front page.
  Here was a new Department. Since then, the President and all the 
people in his administration, the King's men and women, have been out 
there saying: Pass this bill, pass this bill, which was hatched by four 
individuals. Let me see if I can remember their names. Mr. Ridge was 
one. Mr. Mitch Daniels was another. He is the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget. Mr. Gonzalez, I believe he is the President's 
counsel, and Mr. Card, I believe. I hope I am right. I am. Someone 
nodded in the affirmative to me and so I am. There it was in the 
newspapers. Those four gentlemen, very reputable persons, people of 
high caliber and unblemished reputations, as far as I know, and this 
was their idea.

  Now compare that group of four, working in the shadows, the dim 
light. The lights may have gone out, but I expect there might have been 
candles there, or perhaps oil lamps. I can just see the shadows, the 
figures of the shadows moving back and forth in those caverns, on the 
walls of those caverns, as the men remonstrated, and said this: We 
ought to have this, we ought to have that. Whatever they say. Anyhow, 
that was hatched down there.
  Now that was a different committee. Four individuals, from the 
committee that wrote the Declaration of Independence. By the way, I 
carry that Declaration of Independence right here in my shirt pocket. 
Who was on the committee that wrote that Declaration of Independence? 
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and 
Livingston. So there were five. My, my, look at those giants, five 
giants who wrote the Declaration of Independence. Had they been 
arrested by the British for treason, they could have been sent to 
England and they could have been hanged. And so could the others who 
signed that Declaration of Independence. The signers are all listed in 
this little book I hold in my hand.
  They were doing things that challenged. They were doing things for 
which they were willing to give their lives. They would have given 
their lives, had they been tried for treason. Those men committed 
treason against the government under which they then lived. The far 
reaches of the Parliament's hand, the King's hand, from Great Britain, 
from England, could have snatched them, taken their fortunes, taken 
them to England, tried them, taken their lives. So they pledged their 
lives, their fortunes, their sacred vows.
  How about those four in the White House? Were they pledging their 
lives

[[Page S8601]]

and fortune? Quite a different committee, I must say.
  Anyhow, with all respect to the four men who are public servants, and 
who are doing their best, as they see it, for their President--quite a 
different matter.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield to the distinguished Senator for a question, 
retaining my right to the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I have listened carefully to your dissertation of the 
past and the responsibilities that all of us have to make sure we 
uphold the Constitution. And I also recognize that what the 
administration was doing in this regard, and agree with the Senator 
that what happened at that time, was most unfortunate.
  Is the Senator aware the administration has compared the creation of 
the Department of Homeland Security to the reorganization of the 
Government set forth by the passage of the National Security Act of 
1947?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, allusions to that act, the National Security Act, 
which was created in 1947 after a period of at least 3 or 4 years. This 
Senator is aware of the allusions that have been made to that act and 
the references that have been equated, the reorganization of the 
Government under the Bush Administration and how it is compared.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I have done some research on the creation of the 
Department of Defense that I would like to share with my friend. I 
found the research helpful in putting the current debate in context.
  First, I agree this proposal is similar in scope to the 1947 debate, 
but there are also some notable differences between the 1947 debate and 
today's dialog.
  Mr. BYRD. I would like to hear those.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. The Bush administration proposal and the Lieberman 
substitute we are debating represent a dramatic reorganization of the 
Federal Government. The most obvious difference between the process in 
the 1940s and this summer is time. The creation of the Department of 
Defense was a collaborative process between the executive branch and 
Congress, measured not in days and weeks but years.
  Proposals for combining the military services were first considered 
in Congress in 1944. President Harry Truman became keenly involved in 
the effort and sent a message to Congress at the end of 1945 proposing 
the creation of the Department of National Defense. Congressional 
hearings were held on the matter throughout the following year. In 
1947, the President sent legislation to Congress that, after additional 
hearings and congressional input, was finally passed and signed into 
law in July of 1947.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator is certainly laying down a very impressive 
premise for the question which he will ultimately ask. Please go ahead. 
The Senate needs to hear this.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Additionally, Congress made significant changes in the 
Department of Defense in 1949. Thus, the thoughtful and deliberate 
process to create an effective Department of Defense did not happen in 
a summer, a year, or even one session of Congress.
  Mr. BYRD. How about that. Right.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. It took 5 years and was founded upon discussion, 
debate, and compromise.
  Mr. BYRD. Say that again.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. It was founded upon discussion, debate, and compromise.
  Let me be clear that I am not advocating we take 5 years to debate 
the proposal before us, only that we ought to be thoughtful and 
deliberative. This current reorganization will affect the lives of 
every American for years to come. Unfortunately, the current 
administration has made it clear it will veto any legislation that is 
not almost identical to its proposal.

  Mr. BYRD. Say that again, please.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. It is clear it will veto any legislation that is not 
almost identical to its proposal.
  Recently, President George Bush, speaking about this legislation, 
said: The Senate had better get it right.
  I agree with the President that we do have a solemn responsibility to 
consider, debate, amend, and strengthen this legislation. I am sure the 
President understands that the Senate's deliberate consideration of 
this bill is an integral part of the process of ``getting it right.''
  As the President's father said, a time of historic change is no time 
for recklessness.
  Mr. BYRD. Right again. What was that?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. A time of historic change is no time for recklessness.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. As my friend from West Virginia knows, when Congress 
created the Department of Defense, the affected agencies had input into 
the process.
  Here is another significant difference between the development of the 
Department of Defense and the current debate over homeland security.
  In the 1940s, the executive branch agencies affected by the proposed 
reorganization were participants in the process. The Army, the Navy, 
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed specific plans for 
reorganizations as early as 1945. And the Army and Navy were consulted 
prior to the President submitting draft legislation in 1947, 2 years 
later. This cooperative approach in developing a workable new 
Department contrasts starkly with the way the administration developed 
homeland security draft legislation.
  A small group of advisers, which the Senator has explained well, 
working in secret in the White House, developed the present Bush 
proposal. Members of Congress and the Secretaries of the affected 
Cabinet agencies were reportedly not even informed about the proposal.
  Mr. BYRD. How about that.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Amazing.
  As I have said many times, I understand, in the wake of the horrific 
events of September 11, we would look for ways to strengthen our 
Nation's defense to prevent any further catastrophe. I fully support 
that goal, but we must be cautious, to make sure that we work to 
correct what went wrong and not interfere with what went right.
  We know what went wrong, and I firmly hope we, as a nation, will 
develop a comprehensive plan to address the shortcomings of our 
intelligence gathering and communication efforts which, to me, were the 
core of the problem.
  Mr. BYRD. Right on. Right on.
  Let me hear that said again. I want to be sure I remember that.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. We know what went wrong, and I firmly hope that we, as 
a nation, will develop comprehensive plans to address the shortcomings 
in our intelligence gathering and communication efforts.
  Because of the similarity of the September 11 attacks and the attack 
on Pearl Harbor, over 60 years ago--which I am just barely old enough 
to remember, being 5 at that time, but I remember that day to this 
moment--we should remember the finding of the Joint Congressional 
Committee that investigated Pearl Harbor, that:

     . . . the security of the nation can be ensured only through 
     . . . centralization of responsibility in those charged with 
     handling intelligence.

  That, to me, is the key that we have to look at for a resolution of 
this problem.
  I hope we will learn a lesson after the tragic events that occurred 
on September 11. Correcting intelligence failures must be the hallmark 
of any new Department of Homeland Security.
  I thank my colleague for yielding, and I look forward to continuing 
this debate and considering this important legislation.
  In closing, I hope we will take our time in creating this new 
Department and that we will protect the role of the legislative branch 
throughout this process. I commend Senator Lieberman for leading debate 
on this important topic, but I also thank my friend from Virginia. In 
the 200-year history of this body, there has never been a more vigilant 
defender----
  Mr. BYRD. Would the Senator mind repeating that and addressing his 
remarks to the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator----
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes, right. I also thank my friend, the Senator from 
West Virginia, Mr. Byrd. In the 200-year history of this body, there 
has never been a more vigilant defender of the legislative branch than 
the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I didn't 
want him to repeat what he said for that part. But I wanted him just--
--
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I wanted to repeat it for that part.

[[Page S8602]]

  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. He referred to this Senator as the 
Senator from Virginia. That was inadvertent and it was pretty much out 
of levity, in a way, that I wanted him to get the States right and 
recognize me as a Senator from West Virginia, which he knows. People do 
have that slip of the tongue. It happens many times.
  But what the Senator said--putting that entirely aside--is what I 
have been saying. We need to take the time and not act in haste. That 
is what we are being pushed to do, and the press, the media has not 
paid enough attention, in my judgment, overall, to this bill and to the 
Lieberman substitute. Somebody hasn't been listening.

  My colleagues, I do not believe, have been listening. That is why I 
said slow down a little bit here.
  I am grateful to the divine hand that brought these Senators to the 
floor. At least this Senator from West Virginia is getting a little 
attention. It is not that I want attention, but this Senator from West 
Virginia is getting a little attention as to what he is saying, why 
this stubborn guy from West Virginia--I will call him a guy--this 
stubborn upstart from West Virginia is trying to stop the train, trying 
to stop our hurrying forth, acting in the least amount of time, acting 
almost immediately to give to the President this legislation creating a 
Department of Homeland Security.
  At last, at last, at last two of my colleagues have asked questions 
today. I am sure there will be other Senators who will do the same, now 
that I am beginning to break through, get through the ice, get through 
the veil that this is a measure that is vitally important to every 
individual in this country today, every man, woman, boy, and girl. It 
goes beyond just creating a Department of Homeland Security.
  That is what the distinguished Senator said. He is talking about 
intelligence. He is getting into the intelligence area of what is 
involved here. It is much more involved than just creating a Department 
of Homeland Security. I am for that. I have been for it. But I am glad, 
I am grateful to the distinguished Senator for what he has said here. 
He has capsuled this very large subject with respect to the National 
Security Act, how time passed, the steps that were taken, the pauses 
that occurred, the scrutiny that was given, and the fact that the heads 
of the military branches--the Navy and the Army and others--their 
thoughts were acquired, their recommendations were acquired, their 
advice was sought as to the creation of this new department of defense. 
So they had input into it.
  It wasn't done overnight. It didn't grow up like the prophet's gourd, 
overnight. It took time and that was a wise move.
  I thank the Senator for going into that particular aspect of this in 
depth. He has been thorough in what he has said with respect to the 
creation of the department of defense. I am grateful and the American 
people can be grateful to the Senator for what he has said, what he has 
contributed here today in just the few minutes he held the floor and he 
zeroed right in on one of the things that I eventually wanted to get 
to, and there are others.
  I am not going to say anything further now, if the Senator wants to 
ask a further question.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. No. I am very pleased to have been able to have this 
time with the Senator, and I look forward to working with him.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I am delighted. I am just delighted 
that he came to the floor and made this statement. I am delighted that 
he believes we should take our time. Not an exorbitant amount of time, 
not an inordinate amount of time, but take time, the necessary time to 
scrutinize this proposal and act. It is not so important that we act 
quickly; it is important that we do it right. That is all I have been 
saying. Let's do this right.
  Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. I again thank the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. DAYTON. I think the Senator from Vermont is very enlightening as 
to the timing of that crisis--also following right in the aftermath of 
World War II, certainly another time where this country faced a very 
grave threat, leading into the beginning of the Korean war where the 
country again faced another enormous threat.
  I wonder if the Senator can comment on how that experience should be 
instructive to the Senator's amendment. It seems the Senator has 
foreseen the kind of timetable of bringing back from these various 
directorates their preliminary plans that would lead to a far more 
insightful and, I think, constructive reorganization than the one that 
is contemplated by the proposal of the administration.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I think I grasped the question that was 
asked. It was well put. I think I have a problem with the Senator's 
microphone and where he is standing. Would he shorten his question?
  Mr. DAYTON. The Senator from West Virginia has an amendment which 
would seem to embody the intention of what occurred post-World War II, 
which was the sequential development of a department of such critical 
importance. I wonder if there is a parallel to be drawn there to 
instruct all of us that the approach being recommended by the learned 
Senator from West Virginia is the one that is going to likely produce 
the much more beneficial result to the country rather than the helter-
skelter that would go forward without the Senator's direction.
  Mr. BYRD. Absolutely. The Senator, by his question, has really 
answered his question. We saw that the country took more time in the 
1940s to create a Department of Defense. It took time. It had the input 
of the heads of the military branches and their advice. Mr. Truman took 
time. It wasn't enacted during the heat of battle. The thought was 
there. The suggestion was there. Committees held hearings, and 
buildings were proposed during that time. But it was after the war that 
the Department of Defense was created. It wasn't all done in a hurry. 
There was need to do something along those lines. Many Members of 
Congress introduced legislation to carry out the results, to create and 
reorganize the Government in that respect. The military people who were 
directly involved and had input put.
  We may be in a situation here where we can't wait 4 years, or 3 
years, or 2 years, as was the case there. But there is a direct 
parallel. They took their time. In taking their time, it didn't mean 
they were just dragging their feet. They took time. During the time 
that was passing, they talked about this; they got the advice of the 
military. They were preparing all along their action--but do it right; 
not do it quickly but do it right.
  The same is true here in many respects. The point is that we must not 
do it quickly. We are being urged in the Senate: Get on with it, pass 
it. The President, with his backdrop as he goes around the country and 
appears before the military organizations and others: Do it, do it, do 
it now.
  There was a little ad I used to hear on television not too many 
months ago: Do it now; do it here. Do it now; do it here. Well, that is 
what I am hearing: Do it now, do it now, do it now, do it here, do it 
quickly. I am saying no, no. The object is, do it right--not do it by 
this weekend or not do it by next weekend, and not to do it in a hurry, 
do it right.
  This is a far-reaching measure. If this act is passed as the 
administration wants it passed, believe you me, it is going to affect 
the civil liberties of Americans. That is what I am saying. Just hold 
on a minute.
  In the bill by Mr. Lieberman that came out of his committee--I will 
refer to that momentarily to just kind of jar the senses of Members of 
the Senate who have not been paying very much attention--many of them. 
They are busy people. They have their attentions drawn to other very 
important matters all the time. There is just not enough time allotted 
to us as Senators to do our work right in every case. There just isn't 
enough time.
  I just want to read one provision from Mr. Lieberman's bill. It is on 
page 186 of the bill. It is title III that sets up a national strategy 
for combating terrorism and the homeland security response.
  Under title III of the committee bill, in section 301 designated 
``Strategy,'' under the first paragraph:

       The Secretary and the Director--

  That means the Director of the Department of Homeland Security, and 
the Secretary of Homeland Security--


[[Page S8603]]


     shall develop the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism 
     and Homeland Security Response--

  They shall do this. I will read it--

     for detection, prevention, protection, response and recovery 
     to counterterrorism threats, including threats, vulnerability 
     and risk assessment and analysis, and the plans, policies, 
     training exercises, evaluation, and interagency cooperation 
     addresses each such action relating to such threats.
       Responsibilities Of The Secretary.
       The Secretary shall have responsibility for portions of the 
     Strategy--

  Strategy with a capital S--

     addressing border security, critical infrastructure 
     protection, emergency preparation and response, and 
     integrating State and local efforts with activities of the 
     Federal Government.

  Next paragraph:

       Responsibilities Of The Director.
       The Director shall have overall responsibility for 
     development of the Strategy--

  Again, with a capital S--

     and particularly for those portions of the Strategy 
     addressing intelligence, military assets, law enforcement and 
     diplomacy.

  Next paragraph:

       Contents.
       The contents of the Strategy--

  Strategy with a capital S--

     shall include--

  Get that: The contents of the Strategy which will be developed by the 
Secretary of the Department and the Director--

     shall include:
       (1) a comprehensive statement of mission, goals, 
     objectives, desired end-state priorities and 
     responsibilities;
       (2) policies and procedures to maximize the collection, 
     translation, analysis, exploitation, and dissemination of 
     information relating to combating terrorism and the homeland 
     security response throughout the Federal Government and with 
     State and local authorities;
       (3) plans for countering chemical, biological radiological, 
     nuclear and explosives and cyber threats.

  Now get this. Paragraph 4 is one of the items that will make up the 
contents of the Strategy with a capital S--strategy that is developed 
by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the 
Director of Homeland Security--the Director. Here is someone I want the 
Senate to be required to confirm--this Director. We will provide for 
the confirmation of the Secretary. But I want the Director confirmed, 
too.
  Get this. This is paragraph 4 of the Strategy with a capital S. There 
is much more to be said about this Strategy set forth in title III. But 
listen to this. This is part of the plan, part of the Strategy.

       (4) plans for integrating the capabilities--

  My--

       And assets of the United States military into all aspects 
     of the Strategy. . . .

  Now, does that get the attention of any Senator? We have something we 
call posse comitatus--some would say comitatus, which would be correct, 
too--both. But there are laws, there are statutes, that have to do with 
posse comitatus. And I shall have a speech to make on posse comitatus, 
or comitatus, at some point, hopefully, or likely, if we continue.
  But forgetting the statute for a moment, listen to this. The 
Secretary and the Director are going to draw up a strategy for dealing 
with this homeland security. And what is part of something that this 
bill is requiring that they include in their plans, and that they have 
the authority to develop and include in its strategy? Let me read that 
again. It says:

       The contents of the Strategy shall include--

  And we jump down to (4):

     plans for integrating--

  What does that mean?

     integrating the capabilities--

  My, ``the capabilities.'' What are they talking about, 
``capabilities''?

     . . . include . . . integrating the capabilities and assets--

  What does that mean, ``assets''?

     of the United States military into all aspects of the 
     Strategy.

  Now, what do we have here? What are we dragging into this 
legislation? Why, that should cause every Senator in this body to raise 
an eyebrow. What are we talking about here? What are we voting for? I 
will have more to say on this.
  I believe that at last I am getting a little attention to what I say 
about this homeland security.
  Let me read that again so it will be in the Record for the weekend, 
and Senators can think about it a little bit. And the media may have 
had their attention called to something here that is in this bill. Let 
me tell you something. I expect Senators would open their eyes even 
more as to what is in the administration's plan and what is in the 
House bill. But just in the Lieberman bill, which, as I say, is an 
improvement over these other approaches by the administration and the 
House, the House of Representatives--let me read that again:
  ``The contents of the Strategy''--this is in title III--``The 
contents of the Strategy shall'' be developed by the Director of 
Homeland Security and by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security--yes, my attention has been called to an error I made. The 
correct title of the Director is the Director of the new Office for 
Combating Terrorism. I referred to the Director of Homeland Security. 
This is the exact title of the director. And this, the Lieberman bill, 
and these two titles here, have to do with this new office. These two 
titles in the Lieberman bill have to do with the establishment of this 
new Office for Combating Terrorism, established in title II. So I will 
just refer to this as the director.
  The Director and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security 
will devise this strategy for securing the country. That is what we are 
all talking about. But this bill requires that among the 
responsibilities of the Director are these:

       The Director shall have overall responsibility for 
     development of the Strategy, and particularly for those 
     portions of the Strategy addressing intelligence, 
     military assets, law enforcement, and diplomacy.

  And among the ``Contents'': ``The contents of the Strategy shall 
include''--(1), (2), (3,) and now (4)--there are nine items to be 
included in ``The contents of the Strategy.'' The fourth one is this:

       plans for integrating the capabilities and assets of the 
     United States military into all aspects of the Strategy. . . 
     .

  Now, what are we going to have? A police state? Are we going to have 
the Army and the Navy, the Marines--are they going to get involved? I 
don't think anybody wants to do that. I don't think anybody is thinking 
of that.
  But look at this language, what it says. We have to contemplate the 
unintended consequences of what we do here. Even at best, if we have 
both eyes and both ears, and the full attention and focus of our 
collective brains, and we pass an item, we give it careful attention, 
there may still be unintended, unforeseen consequences that will flow 
from that act that we passed.
  How much more so might that happen if we pass an act in a hurry and 
don't apply the full focus of our faculties in addressing that 
legislative matter? The question answers itself.
  Finally, let me just read, once more, item No. (4) in ``The contents 
of the Strategy'':

       (4) plans for integrating--

  ``Integrating,'' what does that mean?

     integrating the capabilities and assets of the United States 
     military. . . .

  We all know what that means when we talk about the military and the 
capabilities of the U.S. military--

     plans for integrating the capabilities and assets of the 
     United States military into all--

  Not just a few, all--

     aspects of the Strategy.

  Well, I just wanted to read into the Record that excerpt from the 
committee bill.
  Now, perhaps by the fact that these two distinguished Senators asked 
me questions today about it--a relative of the Senator from Minnesota 
was a signer of the Constitution of the United States, signing from the 
State of New Jersey on that occasion. So this fine Senator is here on 
the floor today and has asked me questions. And the equally fine and 
good and able Senator from Vermont has asked some questions.
  So at last--at last--hallelujah, we are getting some questions. 
Somebody is beginning to pay attention to what is in this measure.
  Perhaps the greatest and the gravest defect of the National Security 
Act to reorganize the Armed Forces, continuing in this vein, was the 
failure of Congress to provide oversight of the CIA. When the Central 
Intelligence Agency was established, there was no congressional 
oversight. It was responsible only to the National Security Council and 
the President, and what a mistake that turned out to be.

[[Page S8604]]

  As a result, the late Clark Clifford wrote: ``The CIA became a 
government within a government.''
  Listen to that--became a government within a government. That is 
exactly what we have here. We have the makings of a government within a 
government. If the administration were to have its way, we would have a 
government within a government. We would have a government that is run 
out of the White House, and the Cabinet officers would be put to one 
side. The Secretaries of the various Departments, just put them aside. 
Put the Congress off limits, forget it. We will run things from this 
White House. That is what I am concerned about, as I see here.
  As the late Clark Clifford wrote:

       The CIA became a government within a government which could 
     evade oversight of its activities by drawing the cloak of 
     secrecy around it.

  (Mr. WYDEN assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. BYRD. There you have it in a nutshell. The CIA became a 
government within a government which could evade oversight of its 
activities by drawing the cloak of secrecy around it.
  For years my immediate predecessor as majority leader was Senator 
Mike Mansfield. There has been presiding in the chair up until a moment 
ago the Senator from Montana, Max Baucus, but now we have another 
Senator in the chair. That majority leader from the State of Montana--
at the time, Senator Mike Mansfield--argued for the CIA to be brought 
under congressional supervision. There was Mike Mansfield. There was my 
predecessor as majority leader of the Senate. He was majority leader 
many years. I was his successor.
  The late Mike Mansfield said:

       What I am concerned with is the CIA's position of 
     responsibility to no one but the National Security Council.

  He continued:

       The CIA is free from practically every form of 
     congressional check.

  That was his caution. He said:

       There is no regular methodical review of this agency.

  Now hear the voice of the late Mike Mansfield coming down through the 
years. Listen to him. Listen to the late Mike Mansfield:

       What I am concerned with is the CIA's position of 
     responsibility to no one but the National Security Council. 
     The CIA is free from practically every form of congressional 
     check.

  The late Senator Mike Mansfield cautioned:

       The CIA is free from practically every form of 
     congressional check. There is no regular methodical review of 
     this agency.

  Senator Mansfield pointed out:

       Our form of government is based on a system of checks and 
     balances.

  Hear that. Hear the voice of Mike Mansfield, his words coming down 
through the years, reverberating in this Chamber. I hope they will be 
reverberating in the hearts and minds of the men and women who sit 
today in this great body, the august 100, the special 100 who have been 
elected by 280 million people in phases; according to our illustrious 
Framers, three classes--so that there would be a staged rotation of 
this body, with the Senate in transition all the time, so there would 
never be a completely new Senate, so there would never be a new 
complete turnover of the Senators. Today they number 100.

  The House, theoretically, can turn over in 2 years. We could have a 
completely new House, theoretically, in 2 years under the Constitution. 
But not here. One-third of the Senate only every 2 years, one-third of 
the Senate only; and then another third for 2 years; and then the third 
third for 2 years. That was the genius of the Framers.
  Here we have a continuing body, and we have checks and balances 
written into this Constitution. And there was Senator Mansfield 
pointing it out:
  Our form of government is based on a system of checks and balances.
  They are written into this Constitution which I hold in my hand.
  I saw some of the greatest of the figures in our Government last 
Sunday on television. There was the Secretary of State. There was the 
Vice President of the United States, who is the President of the Senate 
but who cannot address the Senate except by unanimous consent. There 
was Dr. Condoleezza Rice, a very able person who is not confirmed by 
the Senate. She was on television. And there was the Secretary of 
Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on television. There were others. I listened 
to all of them.
  I don't often listen to television, even on Sundays, when more of the 
people who are most often seen and heard and read about in the media 
are on the Sunday shows. But I listened to them all last week because I 
expected them to say something about this subject of the war, the 
subject of an attack, an attack on a sovereign state.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Will the Senator from West Virginia yield for a 
question?
  Mr. BYRD. Let me finish this thought, and I will be happy to yield.
  I saw all those on television. They were talking about the President 
launching an attack on Iraq.
  I have no brief for the Government of Iraq. I have never met Mr. 
Ritter. I know nothing about Mr. Ritter. I think Iraq under the current 
regime is a threat. But not one of those individuals who are high in 
the Government of this country--not one--mentioned the Constitution of 
the United States. Every one of them had to swear an oath to protect 
the Constitution, but not one mentioned this Constitution. And to hear 
them talk, we were ready to go to war. We were prepared to go to war. 
The President had the authority--I am putting that in my words--the 
President had the authority to go to war, to launch an unprovoked 
military attack on a sovereign state. He has just assumed that he has 
that power under the Constitution. No, not under the Constitution. It 
is assumed that the President of the United States has that power. 
There are smart lawyers around and they can take either side of the 
case and come up with a good argument. They can win either side--most 
good lawyers, who can take either side. But not Senators who have sworn 
to support and defend this Constitution and who are here in this 
august, 100-Member body. And I have seen this whole body change, except 
for one person. I have seen the whole body--300 Members of the whole 
body--change three times in my 44 years in the Senate. But not one 
mentioned the Constitution.

  I know what the Constitution says. The Constitution says that 
Congress shall have power to declare war. We can split hairs all we 
want, but there are the words. I know there are traditionalists who 
believe every word of that Constitution, and that was the position that 
was generally held in this country up until the Korean war. But there 
are revisionists today who want to change that. They want to give the 
President power; they think he should have it. So that is what we hear 
from those who want the Commander in Chief to have that power.
  The Commander in Chief was a title to be given to the civil authority 
at war--not to the military--and to make sure of that we don't have a 
four-star general sitting as Commander in Chief; we don't have a three-
star general, or a two-star general, or a one-star general. We don't 
have a military officer sitting in that Oval Office. No, we have a man 
of the people, who is a civil authority. He is the President of the 
United States. He is the Commander in Chief.
  You fellows with the stars on your shoulders, don't get too heady 
here. This Constitution says, in essence, a civilian, a civil officer, 
a civil authority shall sit at the top.
  Those revisionists ought to read the ``Federalist Papers,'' also. 
What do we have here? Our constitutional government that the Framers 
gave us in 1787--once the States, in their conventions, had ratified 
that Constitution--nine of them--said, in essence, the power to declare 
war and the power to make war shall not be reposed in the same hands.
  So that person, who is Commander in Chief, is the civil authority 
down there. He is Commander in Chief, but he cannot declare war, except 
in a circumstance where this Nation is being subjugated to a sudden 
attack. The President has inherent power under the Constitution. I 
don't think anybody disagrees with that. The President has inherent 
power to use the military forces at his command in order to repel a 
sudden attack--sudden, unforeseen, where maybe Congress is at home, 
Congress is out on recess, Congress has gone home for the Christmas 
holidays, or the Thanksgiving holidays, or the Jewish holidays, or 
Congress may have

[[Page S8605]]

recessed for a month in August and they are not here. But the President 
has inherent power in this Constitution to use the military to repel a 
sudden attack against this country or its military forces. Nobody 
argues with that.
  What is being debated here is the President launching, through some 
figment of the imagination, or some resolution which has run its 
course, and under the term ``Commander in Chief,'' an unprovoked attack 
against a sovereign state--to use a military offensive. We are not 
talking about a defensive situation. We are talking about an offensive 
situation in which the President of the United States would attack a 
sovereign state--in this case, Iraq.

  I think Iraq poses a threat under the present regime. I don't argue 
with that. I don't have any argument with the fact that Saddam Hussein 
is an evil man. Of course, we are all evil; every man is. The Bible 
says no man is good. If we look at the programming that appears on our 
television stations, we will probably conclude that this country is not 
exactly a nation that is not evil. It is an evil nation in some 
respects. So let's be careful. I would be careful throwing that word 
around--``evil''--and saying that this is a war between good and evil. 
It may be a war against evil, but it is not necessarily between a good 
nation and an evil nation. But that is off on another track.
  The power to declare war and the power to make war are under 
different hands. Those powers are reposed in different entities. Our 
Constitution reposes the power to declare war in Congress, the duly 
elected, directly elected Representatives of the American people. Of 
course, the Members of the Senate were not directly elected by the 
people back in those days, but there was a requirement that the power 
to declare war was in Congress. Congress is made up of two bodies. At 
one time it was elected by the respective State legislatures, but no 
more. That has been changed by constitutional amendment, as we all 
know.
  Today, the points are still there. The basis is still there. 
Declaring war and making war are two different things, and the Framers 
saw to it that the Commander in Chief would be not a person who would 
declare war. That is the person who will make war. That was discussed 
in the Constitutional Convention and that is the way we have it today.
  Now, I, therefore, say that this President is not authorized to 
declare war. Why? Because there has not been a sudden, unforeseen 
attack on the United States.
  Iraq is not attacking the United States at the moment. If the 
President were to launch a sudden offensive on Iraq, where is his 
authority to do so? He is not doing it to repel a sudden attack against 
the United States. No, he is doing it because he knows, as I know, that 
Saddam Hussein is a threat to us all, to the safety of the people in 
this area, his own people, and the people in the region, and a threat, 
if you carry it far enough, to us. It is not all that sudden, and who 
should declare war in that event? Congress, not the U.N.
  I applaud the President for going to the U.N. and laying out his case 
as to why the U.N. had its chances, had failed, had not lived up to its 
responsibilities, and he made that case well. But the case has not been 
made. It will be talked about eventually; it is being talked about a 
great deal now. I read all about it in the newspapers, I see it on 
television and hear it on the radio. The case is now being made for an 
attack unilaterally by this country against a sovereign state when this 
country has not been attacked.
  The purpose is not to repel a sudden invasion of the United States or 
a sudden attack. If the President were to do this, it would be 
unprovoked at this moment. Where is the President's authority? They say 
it is in the resolution adopted by Congress in 1991. It is not there. 
The authority is not there for the President today to launch an 
unprovoked attack against Iraq. They said it was in the resolution last 
year. I say the authorization is not there. It is not there. We can 
argue and talk all night about that, but it is not there. Show me; 
anyone, show me. It is not there.
  They say he is the Commander in Chief. Well, so what; he is the 
Commander in Chief. Once war is declared or authorized by the Congress, 
then the Commander in Chief will make the war. We will have one head at 
the military and that was the right thing to do. Then an attack, if it 
is authorized by Congress, can go forward.
  Let's don't meddle with this Constitution. There will always be 
defenders of this Constitution, and there are some who will remind the 
country of the Constitution when they are on television. So do not 
assume or take for granted that the President has that power. It is 
this Constitution, the Constitution of the United States, with 39 names 
attached to it.
  Not one word do I hear by those who appear on television, not one 
word about the Constitution. I said that yesterday. I am going to say 
it again today. Not one word did I hear. Perhaps I missed something, 
but I do not think I did. Not one word. They all just assume that the 
President is going to do it, he has a right to do it, he has an 
authority to do it. If our administration has its way, we will take 
this fellow out, and we will take him out unilaterally; we are not 
going to wait on anything.
  Wait a minute, there came a second thought. Some people began to ask 
questions. Other nations began to ask questions. Our friends began to 
ask questions. Our friends in the region began to ask questions, and so 
a decision came. And so, we will hold up a little bit here. We will go 
to the U.N. That is right. That is good. Go to the U.N.
  The U.N. should face up to its responsibilities and should lay down 
the precepts as to why this regime must go. The U.N. should express a 
world view to get the other nations of the world to see it is in their 
interest that there be a regime change or that there be inspections--
bona fide inspections, not like the inspections that were going on up 
until a few years back, in 1998, I believe.

  The President has done that. I say let's don't close our eyes to the 
fact that this Constitution still lives.
  Mr. President, I apologize to the Senator from New York. I did not 
really intend to talk that long. I intended to yield the floor for a 
question from her, and I intended to do it earlier. I am very happy, 
with my apologies, to yield to the distinguished Senator. She is a very 
distinguished Senator from the State of New York; she is a former First 
Lady of this Nation. I yield to her.
  I am grateful that she has a question, that she has perhaps some 
questions. I am glad somebody is beginning to listen. So I yield to the 
Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. BYRD. The Chair does not recognize the Senator from New York. The 
Senator from West Virginia has the floor. I yield to the Senator from 
New York, Mrs. Clinton, for a question on the condition that I retain 
my recognition from the Chair as holding the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair acknowledges the Senator from New 
York to ask a question.
  Mr. BYRD. This Senator has yielded. The Chair can't yield to the 
Senator from New York for a question. I may not have yielded. Now, Mr. 
President, I only yield to the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, for 
a question. Under the rules, I can do that, and I do that with the 
understanding that I do not yield the floor. So if I yield the floor, 
how can the Senator from New York be recognized? The Senator from New 
York is recognized by virtue, under the rules, of my yielding for a 
question.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. 
I thank him for the courtesy of yielding to me for a question, but I 
thank him even more for his stalwart defense of our Constitution and 
his constant reminder of our founding document and the principles that 
it contains.
  I ask the Senator from West Virginia, is it not also the case that 
under the Constitution, this issue about congressional power was very 
well debated, thought through, written about by our Founders, and that 
among the powers that were granted to the Congress was the power of the 
purse, the power to make the decisions about how the people's money 
would be used? Is that a correct reading of the Constitution that we 
cherish so greatly?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from New York, 
Mrs.

[[Page S8606]]

Clinton, is preeminently correct. That authorization for power of the 
purse is found in section 9 of article I of the Constitution.
  Tie that together with the first section of article 1 and we find 
where laws are made and the fact that appropriations may be withdrawn 
from the Treasury in consequence only of an appropriation by law. 
Congress has to pay and pass the laws. The Senator is preeminently 
correct.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Is it not the case that in the Senator's capacity as 
the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee that the committee, 
under the Senator's leadership, has held a number of hearings about the 
various needs that our country faces with respect to both military and 
homeland security?
  Mr. BYRD. Again, the Senator is correct.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Is it further the case that in taking testimony and 
receiving evidence, the Senator has helped to create a better 
understanding of what the needs are that we should be meeting as we 
attempt to prepare our country for the unfortunate but realistic 
possibilities of terrorism?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in response to the question, that has 
certainly been the intention of the Senator from West Virginia who 
currently is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the 
Senate. That is the intention, and I believe I am beginning to be 
successful in getting some ears attuned. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Further to that point, I believe it is the fact, is it 
not, that in the course of examining the many needs which our country 
has, in order to deal with the vulnerabilities we currently experience, 
the Senator has come up with a number of items that the Appropriations 
Committee has determined would further our security, fulfilling the 
responsibility that the Congress is given under our Constitution?
  Mr. BYRD. In response to the question from the distinguished Senator 
from New York, Mrs. Clinton, that is absolutely correct. Senator 
Stevens, as the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, and I--
and the full committee of 29 members made up of 15 Democrats and 14 
Republicans--have responded in that spirit, and we have provided for 
the consideration of the Senate and ultimately the entire Congress our 
views as to the appropriations that are needed.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Is it further correct that among those items the 
Senator has reviewed, studied, and analyzed for the validity of their 
claims and the importance of their priorities, was a recognition we had 
some additional work to do because of the terrible attacks of September 
11? And as a Senator from New York, I want to pause for a moment and 
acknowledge with great gratitude the leadership of the Senator from 
West Virginia in this body and the response of this Nation. We had some 
unfinished business that we learned about because of those horrific 
attacks on September 11, which the Senator from West Virginia is 
attempting to address.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in response to the question from the very 
able Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, I respond in the affirmative 
with a resounding ``yes.''
  The Senator from New York has written me on two occasions about the 
needs of her constituents. And without losing my right to the floor, I 
ask unanimous consent that--I believe the Senator has sent me one or 
two letters. She has spoken to me a number of times off the floor and 
on the floor in this regard. My memory is not infallible, but she sent 
me one or two letters. I do not have them right now, but I ask 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, at the conclusion of 
our remarks that are taking place in this colloquy, those two letters.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit No. 1)
  Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator from West Virginia because these 
are matters of grave importance to my constituents. Beyond that, they 
are of great importance to all Americans. I very much appreciate the 
Senator's attention because he has studied these issues, he understands 
how we have to demonstrate clearly our resolve and our preparedness.
  I ask the Senator from West Virginia, as he has moved forward with 
his work on behalf of the Appropriations Committee, and very 
importantly the work of homeland security, if he has determined there 
is a need for additional money to be sent to our frontline responders, 
our frontline soldiers, our firefighters, our police officers, our 
emergency workers, so they may do the important job of protecting us as 
we expect them to do?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for 
stating so lucidly and so articulately a reference to the needs of the 
people of her State, in reference to the needs of the people who are on 
the ground, in reference to the needs of the first responders, in 
reference to the needs of the firefighters. She is preeminently correct 
in her summation of what has happened in that Mr. Stevens and I--and 
again the full Appropriations Committee, Republican and Democratic--
acted in a very bipartisan way, have time and again responded 
affirmatively and effectively to the needs of the people of New York 
and the people of the Nation.
  New York was attacked, and within 3 days my committee, the committee 
of Mr. Stevens, the Appropriations Committee, appropriated $40 billion.
  Time and again, we have responded, and time and again the 
distinguished Senator--both Senators from New York, the Senator who is 
now at her desk and the senior Senator from New York who talked with me 
before having to catch an airplane today and had to leave. He could not 
be on the floor today because he had something else he was required to 
do and was expected to do. So he is not present now, but he talked with 
me today on the floor when the Senate returned to the homeland security 
bill. And while the Senate was on the Department of Interior 
appropriations bill, he talked with me again about the needs of his 
State, the State which he so ably represents. And just a few days ago, 
within this last week it was, the Senator from New York came to see me 
in my office. It was not the first time she had come to me to talk 
about the needs of that great city, the city of New York, and its great 
people. Many times, she and the senior Senator, Mr. Schumer, have come 
to my office.
  Last week, she came to my office in the early evening hours of the 
day and expressed to me the need for three items especially. She wanted 
those items in the appropriations bill. We are debating an 
appropriations bill and it is taking a long time. It should not take 
this long. We ought to have had this bill passed and sent to the 
President.
  In this Appropriations Committee which I chair and which Mr. Ted 
Stevens, I will say, cochairs realistically, that committee has 
reported all 13 appropriations bills several weeks ago which have to be 
passed this year. They have been reported from my committee. They have 
been sent to the Senate and they appear on the Senate calendar.
  Those 13 appropriations bills are very slow in getting to the 
President. Not one has gone to the President. The House Appropriations 
Committee--and I do not speak with disrespect there; they have a 
wonderful chairman over there in Congressman Young and a wonderful 
ranking member over there in Dave Obey. They speak their minds. They 
speak their hearts. But that chairman over there has some people, other 
high offices he has to deal with in that body. He cannot always do what 
he may wish to do. The House is a little different from the Senate. In 
the Senate, of course, we can talk and kind of speak our minds, and we 
can take independent actions here.
  That Senator from New York who holds the floor over there at this 
moment, she is standing right by her desk. She came to my office last 
week and importuned me to find a way at some point that she would like 
to introduce an amendment or she wanted an amendment introduced or 
wanted to amend one of those bills, take care of those three items in 
particular that she addressed to me. And then, lo and behold, earlier 
this week I held up a letter brought to me, delivered to me, not by the 
U.S. Mail but by someone from the Senator's office. I believe she came 
by my office and did not find me in the office at that time, so she 
left a letter, which I have already gotten consent to have printed in 
the Record.

[[Page S8607]]

She wrote me a letter. She was not just saying, I want mine. She was 
saying, these are needed, also by the people in the other States of 
this Union.
  So yesterday Senator Stevens and I joined in an amendment to the 
Interior appropriations bill which comes out of the Appropriations 
subcommittee that I chair, the subcommittee on the Department of the 
Interior. In that amendment, Senator Stevens and I have entered and 
offered, we have attempted to address the needs of the firemen, of the 
security of our nuclear plants, and other pressing homeland security 
needs among which are the three items in which the Senator expressed 
interest.
  So, time and again we have done this. Time and again, the Republicans 
and Democrats on that subcommittee have joined to deal with the home 
security needs.
  So the answer is, yes, those needs have been expressed by the 
Senator, those needs have been addressed by the Appropriations 
Committee, and even now, or when the Senate gets back on the Interior 
appropriations bill, there is the amendment by Senator Stevens and 
myself which will address some remaining needs in the amount of over 
$900 million in that amendment.
  So it is national in scope, but within that national-in-scope measure 
is the State of New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator for his understanding and 
compassion and his leadership.
  As I yield back the floor because of a courtesy that was extended to 
me by the Senator to be part of this colloquy, I point out that dealing 
with homeland security is a very heavy responsibility.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield for the purpose without losing my 
right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator because he has shouldered this 
heavy responsibility.
  We have a process that we have had for many decades about the money 
we appropriate for our military, and the needs are discussed within the 
civilian and military leadership of the Department of Defense. It comes 
to the Congress, and there is a process.
  But we are faced with new challenges. It is my observation and 
opinion that the Senator from West Virginia and his very worthy 
colleague, the Senator from Alaska, have taken it upon their shoulders 
to create a process where none was before so we could begin to address 
these very serious issues--not wait for a Department to get set up, not 
wait for it to get organized or get its first budget.
  But right now, in the face of the ongoing threats, of having an 
orange-level threat just a few days ago, it brings home how important 
the work is the Senator is doing. I express my gratitude to him. I 
thank him for the courtesy of yielding to me for these questions.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, September 3, 2002.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I want to thank and commend you again 
     for all your hard and important work to help New York recover 
     from the terrorist attacks and on the issue of homeland 
     security more generally. We are all greatly indebted to you.
       As the FY 2003 Interior Appropriations bill comes to the 
     floor tomorrow, I understand there may be some effort to 
     offer an amendment to provide the emergency funding requested 
     by the Administration to battle the wildfires in the western 
     part of the country. As a part of this effort, I thought I 
     would raise a couple relevant items of particular importance 
     to me that were left shortchanged by President Bush's 
     decision to not make the emergency designation on the $5.1 
     billion you included in the FY 2002 Supplemental 
     Appropriations bill. The following emergency items are 
     especially relevant to address the urgent needs of 
     firefighters and emergency responders in New York and across 
     the country:
       $90 million to HHS/CDC for clinical examinations and the 
     monitoring of long-term health consequences for police, fire 
     and other first responders at Ground Zero. Each day there are 
     new reports of emergency rescue personnel who worked at the 
     World Trade Center site suffering from respiratory and other 
     ailments. The $12 million appropriated last year provided 
     sufficient funding to begin baseline screenings for 
     approximately one-third of the workers at the site. This 
     additional funding is necessary to continue the screenings 
     for the remaining first responders, as well to monitor their 
     health for the coming years.
       $150 million in firefighting grants as authorized under the 
     FIRE Act. As you know, fire departments from New York and 
     across the country have filed applications that exceed $3 
     billion in need for $360 million in available resources. 
     These resources will help our fire departments meet the 
     demands and safety needs of our communities.
       $100 million in grants to make fire and police equipment 
     interoperable--these resources are split evenly between FEMA 
     and DOJ's Office of Domestic Preparedness. One of the primary 
     causes of the death of most firefighters on September 11th 
     was their inability to communicate with each other and with 
     the Police Department. These resources are critically needed 
     to protect the health and lives of our bravest domestic 
     soldiers.
       As you can see, these are all emergency items and ones that 
     you had the foresight to include in the Supplemental 
     Appropriations bill Congress passed earlier this year. I very 
     much appreciate all your hard work and support in making sure 
     these important items get the funding they so critically 
     need.
           Sincerely yours,
     Hillary Rodham Clinton.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 10, 2002.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to follow up on my letter 
     of September 3 with some recent findings on the health of 
     emergency response workers at the World Trade Center site.
       New information on the health impacts of working at Ground 
     Zero was released yesterday in the New England Journal of 
     Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 
     Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (attached). This new 
     data confirms, what many of us have known for some time, that 
     there will be continuing health consequences for the workers 
     and volunteers who responded at the World Trade Center site. 
     Specifically, Dr. David Prezant and colleagues presented new 
     data showing that both a ``World Trade Center cough'' and 
     permanent, asthma-like symptoms are directly correlated with 
     intensity of exposure to the collapse of the towers. In fact, 
     in just six months since the attacks, eight percent of those 
     highly exposed displayed the cough, and twenty-three percent 
     of those highly exposed showed asthma-like symptoms. Of those 
     identified with the cough, 87 percent also had 
     gastrointestinal reflux disease.
       In addition, during the 11 months after the attacks, the 
     number of respiratory medical leave incidents increased five-
     fold and the number of stress-related incidents increased 
     seventeen-fold among FDNY workers. As of the end of August, 
     more than 360 firefighters and EMS workers remained on 
     medical leave or light duty assignment because of respiratory 
     illness that occurred after WTC exposure, and 250 FDNY rescue 
     workers remained on leave with service-connected, stress-
     related problems. It is estimated that 500 FDNY workers will 
     have to retire on the basis of their injuries in the 
     aftermath of the WTC attacks.
       With this new evidence, which was also reported this 
     morning on the front page of The New York Times, I feel more 
     strongly that we must immediately provide the emergency 
     funding you included in the FY 2002 Supplemental 
     Appropriations bill earlier this year. As we have discussed, 
     the three key pieces are:
       $90 million to HHS/CDC for clinical examinations and the 
     monitoring of long-term health consequences for police, fire 
     and other first responders at Ground Zero.
       $150 million in firefighting grants as authorized under the 
     FIRE Act.
       $100 million in grants to make fire and police equipment 
     interoperable. These resources are split evenly between FEMA 
     and DOJ's Office of Domestic Preparedness.
       I look forward to working with you on this as we proceed on 
     the FY 2003 Interior Appropriations bill.
           Sincerely yours,
                                           Hillary Rodham Clinton.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New 
York for her questions and her comments.
  Mr. President, I have been informed that the distinguished occupant 
of the chair, Mr. Wyden, has to leave soon, has to depart the chair; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is correct, but 
given the importance of the matters of the Senator from West Virginia, 
I want to make sure the Senator from West Virginia gets all the time he 
needs to complete his remarks, and I will stay for this.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I have been a Member of 
this body 44 years. I don't think I have ever seen a time when I was 
pressed to complete my statement on the premise that there were no 
other Senators available to preside over this body and that the 
occupant of the chair would have to leave soon, thus forcing me to 
complete my statement before I intended to complete it.
  This comes down to a pretty serious juncture. I will not go any 
further than

[[Page S8608]]

to say that in this body no Senator should be required to end his 
statement on the basis that after a certain hour there will be no 
further Senators available to preside. Now, Mr. President, that is 
pretty serious.
  I have been a Senator a long time, 44 years come next January 3. I 
have been a Member of the Congress for 50 years come next January 3. 
Never have I had it put to me that at a certain hour we will have no 
more Senators available to preside. Now, something is wrong with the 
Senate if it has come to that. Suppose I want to speak until 6 o'clock 
this evening. Suppose I want to deliver a speech that I consider very, 
very important.
  I am not here addressing a Mother's Day speech, making one of my 
holiday speeches. I am not here talking about Mother's Day or Christmas 
Day or Thanksgiving or Independence Day. I am addressing what I 
consider to be one of the most important questions to come before this 
Senate in my 44 years in this Senate. I am very well aware of the fact 
there needs to be a Senator in the chair as I speak. As President pro 
tempore of this body, I should know that. The office of President pro 
tempore is a constitutional office, unlike the office of, say, the 
majority leader, minority leader, majority whip, or minority 
whip. These are offices and officers who are voted on by this body and 
elected by this body. But I am President pro tempore of the U.S. 
Senate. I am the 86th President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate. The 
President pro tempore is the President of the Senate for a time being, 
temporarily, while the Vice President, who is the President of the 
Senate, is away, is not presiding, or is assuming the responsibilities 
of the Presidency in the event, very unfortunate event that that should 
happen. The President pro tempore, he is the first constitutional 
officer elected by the Senate in March 1789. He is a constitutional 
officer. You don't find words in the Constitution about the majority 
leader or minority leader or majority whip or minority whip. I have 
been in at least three of those positions, majority leader, majority 
whip--at least two of them. And minority leader, so I have been three 
of them. But the President pro tempore is a constitutional officer.

  I happen to be a Senator from West Virginia. And I happen to have on 
my heart, which is heavily burdened, a speech. And I want to unburden 
my heart.
  I don't intend to take undue advantage of the person who is presiding 
now. Perhaps he is caught in the unfortunate circumstance that there is 
no other Senator available to take the chair, in which case nobody will 
hear me; I cannot speak.
  This Senator wants to raise a concern, wants to express a concern 
about the situation, if we have come to that in the U.S. Senate. 
Senators ought to ponder that. And there ought to be some Senators at 
least who would be willing--and I am sure there are Senators in town--
not every one of the Senators who happen to not be on the floor today, 
not every one of them is absent from the city. They know what their 
duties are as Senators. I know what my duty is. It is my duty to get 
out of my bed and come here and preside, if no other Senators can be 
found and if it is important that the Senate stand in--I get out of my 
bed if that happens. I know what my responsibilities are, and it kind 
of offends me that we seem to have come to a situation this afternoon 
when no other Senators ``are available to take the chair,'' and the 
Senator in the chair has to leave shortly.
  I am very thankful to the Senator in the chair. I asked him a 
question and he, I am sure, needs to go soon. But he has expressed the 
viewpoint and the willingness to stay here as long as I want to speak.
  I am not going to take advantage of him and pretty soon I will yield 
the floor. But I would put it in these words: It is a dreadful thought 
to me, when I am told that there are no other Senators available. I 
don't say this critically of the individual who carried this message to 
me. It is not the making of that individual, that person who is 
carrying out the duties of that person in doing that. I am sure there 
must be difficulty in finding Senators.
  But what is wrong? What has become of the Senate and its place in the 
Constitution? What has become of the Senate? It has been here, now, for 
215 years. What has become of the Senate? What has become of the 
Senate, the greatest deliberative body, we hear so often, a body in 
which a Senator can stand on his or her feet and speak as long as those 
feet can carry that Senator?
  The floor cannot be taken from a Senator unless he has offended the 
Senate and a point of order is made that the Senator take his seat and 
he is required to take his seat. If he speaks in terms that are 
offensive to another Senator, that person's character, he might be 
asked to take his seat. Or if he speaks offensively concerning a State 
of this Union, he might be required to take his seat.

  But now I am going to be required to take my seat because there is no 
other Senator available, I understand, to take the duties of the chair.
  Mr. President, we ought not in this Senate to have that situation 
arise again, and I am sorry it arose because it kind of takes away from 
the theme that I was trying to say here. But it is worth bringing out. 
Certainly, I think it is worth surfacing because, if that is going to 
be the situation, then we are in bad shape.
  The distinguished Democratic whip earlier today told me that he had 
an engagement. He had an appointment, I believe, back in his home 
State. He had to leave at around 3 today and I understood that. That is 
fine. He told me in plenty of time. He told me this probably before 
noon today that if I was going to make a lengthy speech, he would have 
to leave. So I understand that. But there should be some other Senator 
willing to take the chair, and I have a feeling there are other 
Senators in town who would come and preside if need be.
  All that aside, now, let me close my remarks. In closing I want to 
thank the officers of the Senate, the staff members of the Senate who 
have to remain here. They are here in front of us--the Parliamentarian, 
the journal clerk, the reading clerk and counting clerk and the pages 
and the people at the desk. They are here. I want to thank them and 
apologize for my taking the time this afternoon, but we all know what 
the responsibilities are of officers of the Senate. We know what the 
responsibilities of clerks and employees of the Senate are when we sign 
on, and we know what the responsibilities of Senators are when we sign 
on.
  Having said that, I offer my apologies to everyone if I imposed on 
their time. I offer my apologies, most appropriately and more 
precisely, to the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, who is presiding at 
this moment and who has very graciously indicated his willingness to 
sit in that chair until I close.
  The whip asked me to close the Senate. So if the whip or the majority 
leader had any special requests or any Senator had any special request 
to make before I close the Senate, I will be very happy if someone 
would present me with those requests.
  In the meantime, let me close my printed remarks. It is only a page 
and a half, and they will go very fast.

       Our form of government--

  Senator Mansfield pointed out--

     is based on a system of checks and balances. If this system 
     becomes seriously out of balance at any point, the whole 
     system is jeopardized.

  Senator Mansfield noted:

       There is a profound difference between an essential degree 
     of secrecy to achieve a specific purpose and secrecy for the 
     mere sake of secrecy. Once secrecy becomes sacrosanct, it 
     invites abuse.

  Senator Mansfield recognized, as I do, that the CIA is by nature and 
necessity a secretive organization, but it is not an organization that 
should operate outside our constitutional system, not outside our 
system of government.
  With the Senate select committee to study government operations with 
respect to intelligence agencies--in other words, the Church Committee, 
named after the chairman of that committee, the late chairman, Frank 
Church, the Church Committee--we embarrassingly and tragically learned 
just how ``seriously out of balance'' that agency was.
  The Senate committee discovered that the CIA had been involved in 
illegal, improper, and unethical activities, including the overthrow of 
democratically elected governments, attempted assassinations of foreign 
leaders, and in violation of foreign countries.

[[Page S8609]]

  In testimony before the Church Committee, the late Clark Clifford 
acknowledged:

       The lack of proper controls has resulted in a free-wheeling 
     course of conduct on the part of operations within the 
     intelligence community that has led to spectacular failures 
     and much unfortunate publicity.

  That was one of the architects of the National Security Act of 1947 
speaking.
  Three decades after its enactment, Mr. Clifford was complaining about 
continuing imperfections and the damage that had been done to our 
country.
  I am very concerned that 30 years from now Congress will be 
struggling to rectify the problems we will be creating with the hastily 
considered enactment of this legislation as it is written, creating the 
Department of Homeland Security, according to the legislation that is 
written and before the Senate.
  How much harm could be done in the meantime cannot be imagined. I am 
referring to damage to the rights and the liberties that we hold most 
dear: civil rights, labor rights, labor protections, civil liberties of 
all Americans.
  I will go into those further. I intended to get into some of them 
this afternoon. I will not do so. I am talking about damage to our 
constitutional process.
  I see one other Senator, the distinguished Senator on the Republican 
side of the aisle. I assume he would like to take the floor, if I give 
it up. I didn't intend to give it up until we adjourned. But if the 
distinguished Senator wishes me to yield to him 5 minutes before I 
adjourn the Senate, I will adjourn in the absence of the majority whip 
and the majority leader. But I will do so by their request.
  Does the Senator wish me to yield for a question?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Does he wish me to yield for a statement?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to make a statement. I had hoped to speak 
for 10 or 15 minutes. I understand we have a problem. I have been here 
since before noon. I know the Senator had his time reserved, as he has 
every right to do. I was hoping I would have a few moments to talk 
about the important developments with regard to the President's 
position on the United Nations and Iraq. I believe it is important to 
make some remarks today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Chair is here for the 
duration, as long as it may take to complete his remarks.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this is the Senator to whom the Senator from 
Alabama is addressing his remarks. This Senator will answer the 
Senator.
  Mr. President, since there is another Presiding Officer at the 
moment, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, who has been in his 
individual chair in the Chamber--he sits over here to my left--all 
afternoon during all of the time that this Senator has been talking 
about the homeland security matter. He is still here. I thank him. He 
has taken the chair to relieve Senator Wyden. I am glad of that. I am 
still not going to impose on the Senate. But I am going to hold the 
floor until the Senator from Alabama gets through with his statement.

  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that I may yield to the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, for not to exceed 15 
minutes.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator may proceed on the statement 
only, that I may retain my rights to the floor, and that he may proceed 
for not to exceed 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. 
I appreciate his leadership in the Senate, his concern for our 
constitutional order, and his serious historical understanding of the 
separation of powers. We might not always agree on where those 
separations are, but I certainly respect his dedication to preserving 
those separations.

                          ____________________