[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 116 (Friday, September 13, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8611-S8614]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002--Continued

  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama. I have long 
had as my friends Senators from Alabama. When I came to the Senate, 
there were Senators Sparkman and Lister Hill. There have been a 
succession of Senators from Alabama. Especially, I want to mention the 
late Senator James Allen from Alabama. I have had very good relations 
with the Senators from Alabama.
  I consider myself as being on the same footing, same level of good 
relations with the distinguished Senator from Alabama who has just 
addressed the Senate.
  I do want to comment briefly on two or three things that he said.
  He first indicated, when I yielded to him, that he and I had often 
agreed on matters and that there were times when we might disagree as 
to our interpretations of the Constitution. That can be very true.
  Today, I have been talking about a phrase which, when joined with the 
preceding language, amounts to a sentence, a clause: The Congress shall 
have power to declare war.
  There is no reason for anybody to misinterpret that. I hope the 
Senator from Alabama wouldn't misinterpret what is in plain view, 
written in plain English, and has been in that Constitution now for 
over 200 years. I hope there is no matter of misinterpreting that 
plainly spoken clause in the United States Constitution: The Congress 
shall have power to declare war.
  I hope we don't have to argue about how to interpret those plainly 
written, well-understood words from the English language that Congress 
shall have the power to declare war. That is what I have been talking 
about.
  The distinguished Senator went on to say, we need to be with the 
President of the United States; we need to support the President of the 
United States.
  I like to be with the President of the United States on most matters. 
And in the final analysis, I may be with the President on this one. But 
it is not a matter of being with the President or supporting the 
President. I maintain that we need to be with the Constitution of the 
United States. We need to support the Constitution of the United 
States. It is not damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead; it is not damn 
the Constitution, full speed ahead.
  I want to be with the Constitution. Count me on the side of the 
Constitution. I want to support the Constitution first, last, and all 
the time, I say to the Senator. And maybe I will be with the President 
in due time. But I am not one who says this is a matter that has to be 
hurried before the election. What is this? Is this the October surprise 
in August or in September? This is a matter of great moment. And 
hinging on the decisions of this Senate may be the lives of many 
citizens.
  In the second book of Samuel, I remember the story there which is 
told of a rich man and a poor man who lived in the same city. The rich 
man had huge herds of sheep, cattle, and lambs. The poor man had one 
little lamb. The poor man had one little ewe lamb. Everywhere that poor 
man went, that little lamb went. That little lamb was the sole 
possession the poor man had. When he ate, he fed that little lamb from 
his bowl, from his pot, or whatever it might have been. The poor man 
cared for that little lamb and it loved him. He shared his food and he 
shared his shelter with that little lamb.

  Presently, a traveler visited the rich man, and the rich man wanted 
to present a feast to the traveler. He wanted to show courtesy and all 
of the niceties of being a man of hospitable nature. He wanted to 
spread food before the stranger. Did he take from his lambs, his herds? 
He had huge herds. He had vast possessions. He had barns in which he 
stored the product of the fields. He had vast lands. He had servants. 
He was well off. He had many, many lambs.
  Did he take one of the lambs from his own herd? No. He took the one 
little lamb that the poor man had and served it up, may I say to the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama. He served that little lamb, the 
only lamb that the poor man had. He didn't ask for it. He just took it. 
He took that little lamb from the poor man and served it up to his 
guest.
  Now, why do I say this? Why do I refer to second Samuel today? There 
are many mothers in this land who won't get to vote on this matter. 
There are many mothers in this land who have but one little lamb. I 
know we have a volunteer military now, and those who volunteer 
understand what their responsibilities are. They know they may have to 
sacrifice their lives, and they volunteered to do it. Nevertheless, 
there are those in the service who are the little lambs of mothers who 
are at home at night thinking about their little lambs and praying for 
their little lambs.
  Now, here we are about to be faced with a proposition in which these 
representatives--these mothers of the sons and daughters who are in the 
services--will not be asked for their vote. There are those who 
apparently are under the impression that the Congress doesn't need to 
be asked for its vote--the Congress, the elected Representatives under 
this Constitution.
  Yet some have suggested that the President has the authority. He can 
go. Some say he is right and he should attack unilaterally. That is 
what we have been talking about in the last few weeks. People were 
under the impression that this might be a unilateral attack by the 
United States against a sovereign state that was not attacking the 
United States. Of course, we all agree about this imp who is head of 
that government. But that is a sovereign state. That state is not 
attacking us.
  I am not arguing that Iraq it is not a threat, but is it such a 
threat, is it so impending, is it so immediate that the Commander in 
Chief, who is the civil authority over the military in our system of 
government, can send men and women in the military to war, send them to 
give their lives, to shed their blood, without asking the Congress? Is 
he the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, of this 
decision?
  The President is the Commander in Chief. He is not a four-star 
general. Under our system, it is meant to be that way. He is not a 
four-star general. This is a republic, a constitutional republic, and 
we have a legislative branch and a judicial branch. These are separate 
branches. Are we, the Congress, going to stand by and say I am with my 
President, right or wrong?
  No, I don't subscribe to that. Every Senator in this body knows I 
have spoken out in opposition to Democratic Presidents--President 
Clinton being one. I am not speaking from the standpoint of a Democrat. 
I am speaking from the standpoint of a duly elected Representative of 
the American people who have sent me here to this body under a 
constitutional system that observes a separation of power. No, don't 
tell me you are either with the President or against the President. 
That is what I have just heard.

  I am with the Constitution. Mark me down for the Constitution.
  Now, I will have both ears open and hear the arguments that are made. 
I have already applauded the President for going to the United Nations. 
I think the U.N. has been derelict in its duty. It has stood by 
supinely while 16 of its resolutions have been ignored. I don't 
disagree with that; the President did the right thing in doing that. 
There should not have been all this talk in the newspaper, on the 
television, and on the radio, and through the media--the many men and 
women of the Government taking the attitude, apparently, that the 
President has the authority to go to war if he wants to; he has the 
authority. That is not so.
  We are not talking about a mere skirmish. We are not talking about a 
situation in which another country has attacked our country or launched 
an attack on our military forces. This is not a skirmish that we have 
looming out here. This is war. The weapons that may be unleashed in 
this war will not have been unleashed, perhaps, in previous wars. But 
we still have a Constitution. I don't care how many, or how loud they 
may talk or speak. I am going to be at least a single voice saying that 
we live, we work, we act by the Constitution of the United States when 
it comes to declaring war and making war. You can have a thousand 
voices, but they will not drown out mine.
  I am going to be heard, if God gives me the privilege of standing on 
this floor and speaking. I don't know how long God may give me that 
privilege. But as long as I can speak, I will. I am not the greatest 
defender of the Constitution that ever lived. I know a lot

[[Page S8612]]

about American history, and I know a lot about the Daniel Websters who 
spoke in support of the Union that was created by this Constitution, 
which I hold in my hand.
  This is no Johnny-come-lately to this Senate. I have seen 300 
Senators come and go except for one Senator. There have been others in 
this body who have defended this Constitution as valiantly as any could 
defend it.
  Don't say to me you are either with the President or you are not with 
the President. That is not the case. I am with the Constitution of the 
United States, and I am with the Commander in Chief of the United 
States when Congress declares war.
  I know there have only been five declarations of war. I know there 
have been seven other wars that have been carried on, not by 
declaration but by congressional statute. Congress authorized them. 
There have been many smaller wars, conflicts, military skirmishes, and 
so on. But this is a major question facing this country. It will not be 
a military skirmish if it happens, and many a mother will cry on her 
pillow because her lamb, perhaps her only lamb, will have his life 
taken.
  Mr. President, I say let's hear what the ordinary people--I want to 
use the word ``ordinary'' because that fits me exactly. I came from the 
other side of the tracks. I did not grow up in the boardrooms of this 
country. I was never on any corporate board. The only business I ever 
had was a small grocery store. My wife did most of the work in that 
little grocery store. She put me through college. So I am from the 
other side of the tracks.
  I have known times when I did not know what my next job would be. I 
had a family early. My wife and I have been married 65 years, 3 months 
and 15 days today. We were poor. When I was married I was making $70 a 
month, working 6 days a week, long hours a day, and for a while in that 
period walking 4 miles to work and 4 miles from work if I could not 
catch a ride on a milk truck or bread truck.
  I am from the other side of the street. I am not a pampered brat who 
never knew the need for a nickel, never knew the need for anything, had 
everything given to me. I do not find any fault with people who are 
born lucky. What I am saying is there are many more people like this 
man from the other side of the tracks in this country, and there are 
many more mothers from that side of the tracks than there are those who 
never knew what it was to have to wipe the sweat from their brow for 
their daily bread; never had to get their fingernails dirty; never had 
to wear tennis shoes in the snow. Those are the people who fight in 
wars. They are the people whose sons and daughters die in wars, but 
they are not the people who are at the high echelons of Government who 
do the voting.
  In this instance, yes, we are going to have a vote. You can bet on 
that. We will have one. I said all along we ought to vote. That is what 
I am saying today. Congress should vote. But I am not for an ``October 
surprise'' in August, and I am not for voting on this matter before the 
election.
  Look behind that drapery. Draw aside that veil. What do you see? It 
has to be voted on before the election? Forget it. If circumstances 
develop that truly can convince, can be persuasive beyond a semblance 
of doubt that Congress ought to act tomorrow or the day after tomorrow 
or next week, yes, but that convincing case has not been made.
  A convincing case was made to the United Nations yesterday with 
respect to the failures of the United Nations, the fact that that body 
has been recreant in carrying out their responsibilities, a very 
convincing case made by the President of the United States. But no 
convincing case has been made in the press or in this body that we must 
act to give the President authority to invade a sovereign nation now or 
before the election. That case has not been made.
  Make the case and make it here. And believe me, there will be plenty 
said on both sides. If our Nation is at war with another country, I 
will do everything I can to support that war.
  I helped to build the liberty ships and the victory ships in the 
shipyards of Baltimore and the shipyards of Tampa, FL during World War 
II. I was a first-class welder who helped to build ships to carry the 
food and commerce for the engine of war in World War II. I helped to 
build the ships to convey to the military in Europe, in northern 
Africa, in the Pacific. These ships carried the munitions of war. We 
helped to keep the food lines and the blood lines open with those 
ships. So there are many ways to serve. But believe you me, this 
Senator is not now or ever going to be stampeded into voting for or 
against this subject just to be with or without the President. I am 
with the Constitution. If that is the argument we are going to hear, it 
is not going to be a very persuasive argument. You are either going to 
be with this President or not with him.
  Who made this President? He is a very respectable individual who 
comes from a fine family. I served here with his father who became 
President. Who made him? How did he become President? Somebody had to 
cast votes to elect him President. How long will he be President?
  The Constitution made this President. The Constitution was here 
before this President or any other President. Who made the President? 
Who is going to be with the President? I will first be with the 
Constitution. I may be with the President later, but first is the 
Constitution.
  Don't come here saying we are either with or without the President. 
That is not the question. The question is: Are we with the 
Constitution? Are the people's representatives going to make a 
decision? When that time comes, then there might be some good arguments 
to go to war with Iraq, even to stand alone and go to war. Maybe 
arguments can be presented. There may be evidence by then. Who knows? I 
do not know, but we have to see it. The evidence is not there yet that 
we have to act so hastily, that we have to act before the election.
  What does the election have to do with it? What does the election 
have within itself to do with it? The election will go forward. What is 
to keep Congress from voting on this matter after the election? Why 
does it have to be before the election? Is that the ``October 
surprise'' in September or October, before November? Let's not be too 
hasty. That is what I have been saying about this legislation with 
reference to homeland security. Let's don't be too hasty. Let's do it 
right. Remember that mother's lamb.
  The distinguished Senator asked: With whom did Hussein talk? With 
whom did he consult? He may not have consulted anybody; that is too 
bad. Hussein should have had a free and independent Senate. Hussein 
should have had a Senate where voices could be heard, voices in 
opposition to Hussein, voices of caution, openly and freely where all 
the public could hear. Yes, Hussein should have had that. There was no 
Senate like this Senate in Hussein's government. I am talking about a 
free, separate branch, that is independent, where there is free, 
unlimited speech--except for unanimous consent or cloture--where there 
is a Senate that controls the purse strings. Yes, I say Hussein should 
have had that. He should have had a Senate like this Senate. It is not 
led around by any President's chain. No President chains this Senate.
  There are no chains on this Senate. It is a free and independent 
Senate. Yes, Hussein should have had a Senate such as this one, where 
debate would have been heard. But he does not have that. With whom did 
he consult? Certainly not an Iraqi Senate, like this one.
  The same could be said of Emperor Justinian who ruled in 
Constantinople, on the great golden horn. Justinian sent thousands of 
people to their deaths in the Nika rebellion. Justinian did not have a 
Senate.
  What about Ivan the Terrible, who had tens of thousands massacred? 
Ivan the Terrible did not have a Senate. There was no Senate in 
Muscovy.
  Peter the Great sent thousands of men to labor and to die in the 
swamps to build the city of Petrograd, Leningrad. But Peter the Great 
had no Senate to caution him, no Senate that controlled the purse 
strings.
  Yes, with whom did Hussein consult? That is a good question. But we 
know that Hussein had no Senate.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. No, not yet. I will yield maybe later. I will be glad to 
yield--does the Senator have to leave the

[[Page S8613]]

floor? I will yield right now. He is about to leave the floor in a 
huff, I believe. I hope he is not. Maybe I am misinterpreting him.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama for a question without losing my 
right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. 
The Senator is so eloquent in defending the prerogatives of this 
Senate, and I thank him for that.
  We do not need to rush into this. I am of the belief--and I ask the 
Senator if he would consider the possibility that he would be willing 
to support the commencement of debate and a vote, if we could do so, 
before we recess because we may be into January before we return, and I 
think it could complicate matters.
  If I was inarticulate, I apologize, but my request would be that we 
consider the policies, not the President. It is not a personal thing; 
the Senator from West Virginia is correct. Let us consider those 
policies so the world would know whether we are going to support that 
or not. I know the former Vice Presidential nominee for the Democratic 
Party, Senator Lieberman, is supporting these policies, and I think 
there is a majority here. I think the Senator from West Virginia may 
well agree at some point, after he has had full time to digest and 
consider it, but I do believe and hope that the Senator would consider 
allowing us to have a vigorous debate and a vote as soon as we possibly 
could.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will respond to the question that has been 
addressed to me, and it is a good question, a thoughtful question. May 
I just say I hope the Senator will join me in insisting that this 
Senate debate the homeland security legislation and not rush that 
legislation. That is a part of national defense as much as anything. It 
is the defense of our homeland. So I hope the Senator will be one of 
those who will join me in taking our time to thoughtfully debate a very 
serious matter, namely, the creation of the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  Now, more to the question as it was addressed to me, the answer is I 
support debate on the question as to whether or not the Congress should 
authorize the Commander in Chief to make war. I have asked my staff to 
consider language for such a question to be presented to the Senate. My 
staff has been working on such a matter. I hear that Mr. Levin is going 
to hold hearings in the Armed Services Committee, on which the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama serves so well.
  It is good that Senator Levin is going to do that. It is good that 
the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, will hold hearings. The chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee, Senator Graham, may hold hearings. So all these 
things are well and good. They are all necessary under the 
circumstances. We should understand what the witnesses say in those 
hearings.
  Our three chairmen should not just invite administration witnesses. 
Apparently they already have their minds made up. Invite them, but 
don't just not stop at that. Apparently they have their minds made up. 
I heard three or four of them on Sunday talk shows last Sunday. I 
already mentioned that. They are all from the same viewpoint, and not 
one mentioned the Constitution of the United States. Yes, I favor that 
the Congress vote, up or down. I have said that before today. I have 
said that many days. I think the Congress should vote up or down on the 
question.
  This is the question as to whether or not Congress will authorize and 
declare war, if it comes to that. This will be no minor skirmish. This 
will not be a little group out on a party and they happened to run into 
some other people, they got mixed up and got to fighting, and two or 
three were killed. This is not a minor skirmish. I said, yes, this is a 
solemn question because it does involve a dictator such as Saddam 
Hussein, one who has killed his own people, gassed his own people, one 
who has shown no compunction about using biological or chemical 
weapons. We know he has done that. We know he can do that.
  But the question is, what is it that makes it so urgent that all of a 
sudden here comes something like a cloud over the western hills and 
blows into the Capital City, here is a looming storm that just came up. 
Lord, this may be a torrent. It may flood ourselves. It may kill 
people. We have to do something about it right now. What can we do as 
mere mortals? It is not quite like that.
  I have already said the President has inherent power without asking 
anybody. If Congress is out of town, he does not have to ask Congress. 
If this country is attacked, he has the inherent power to repel the 
attacker. I don't argue about that. But that is not the situation. What 
is so new? We have known these things now for months or years.
  May I say to the distinguished Senator from Alabama, would the 
Senator show me the courtesy of just finishing? I know there may be 
some who think I am long winded.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I had something I had to take care of, and I thank the 
Senator, but I will be glad to stay a few more minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Cicero was asked what speech by Demosthenes he liked best; 
and he said, the longest.
  So it is all right. One can be long winded if he has something to 
say. And he may have to say it over and over and over in this 
situation.
  I say, yes, yes, in answer to the Senator, I am for a vote. But I 
have to see evidence that requires us to vote now or tomorrow. We have 
had this evidence all this while, at least a long while, 3 months or 4 
months or 3 years. So why the sudden rush that we have to vote before 
the election? I think we should vote after the election so Senators 
will not be persuaded or moved one way or the other, because of an 
election, as to how they vote. They are voting to send that little lamb 
to the slaughter. Should we do that in a hurry? No. I say let's delay.
  I have said all I will say in answer to the distinguished Senator, 
unless he has another question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia 
for his courtesy and his thoughtfulness. I just ask that he consider, 
in evaluating his decision, the difficulties it provides for the United 
States if we cannot get a vote of support. If we are not for it, let's 
say so. If we do not believe and we are not going to fund--which is our 
ultimate power, to cut off funds--let's say so, and we get on with 
something else.
  I strongly believe we should proceed. Senator Warner, who was 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee or ranking member on the Armed 
Services Committee, said there were nine hearings last time before the 
gulf war, with a period of intense debate. The Senator is correct, we 
ought to have hearings and we ought to have debate. It is just a 
question of, as soon as we get that and people feel ready, the sooner 
we get started and the sooner we complete it, I think the Nation will 
be better off.
  I respect the views of the Senator and the concerns. As the Senator 
knows, under our Constitution we have elections all the time, one 
following the other. There is never a time that someone does not have 
an election in mind, unfortunately.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator avoids the question he put to me. He is talking 
about an election that will come upon us in November--this coming 
November. I understand what he is saying. He is saying we ought to take 
action before the election. Then he says we ought to hear what the U.N. 
says. And I say, let's not be in all the hurry. We ought to hear what 
the U.N. says. Let's see what world opinion is. We ought not go into 
this alone.
  If this man is a threat to world peace, the United States should not 
have to go it alone. Perhaps he will have to be removed. But we have a 
little bit of time, surely.
  I say to the Senator, let's take the time. Let's debate the question. 
Let's debate it and reach a decision on the basis of what the 
Constitution tells us.
  Let me just continue. I didn't want the Senator to leave. I thought 
he was about to leave.
  Let me continue. He said, with whom does he consult? That is a good 
question. I have already responded. I also talked about Justinian. I 
talked about Ivan the Terrible. I talked about Peter the Great. Now, 
let's go to Stalin. With

[[Page S8614]]

whom did he consult? With whom did Adolph Hitler talk? With whom did he 
consult?
  It was not a free and independent Senate. If they had a free and 
independent Senate that had control of the power and control of the 
purse strings, history might have been different. Hundreds of thousands 
of lives might have been saved.
  Mr. President, let us not act in haste. Let us forget about our 
politics. Let us not be for or against a resolution on the question of 
war or peace on the basis of what party we belong to. Let us put that 
question in a way that we will be with and in support of the 
Constitution.

                          ____________________