[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 120 (Friday, September 20, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8964-S8967]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       IRAQ AND HOMELAND DEFENSE

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the President pro tempore for the 
recognition, and I thank the Senator from West Virginia, who just 
delivered a very insightful statement of why the Constitution must be 
protected and not shredded, why the Constitution must be adhered to in 
a protection of the carefully constructed separation of powers which 
gives us the checks and balances that have allowed this Government to 
endure for well over two centuries, to be the strong Government it is 
because, as a great British statesman once said: Power corrupts, and 
absolute power corrupts absolutely.
  In the 1780s, when those political geniuses gathered to construct a 
document upon which this new Nation could be based and the delicate 
checks and balances were entered, as well as the spirit of compromise 
in that Constitutional Convention, they set off one branch of 
Government from the other.

[[Page S8965]]

  Thus, as we come to this very serious determination of what to do in 
Iraq, we have to be mindful of the Constitution and its separation of 
powers. Clearly, the Constitution gives that awesome and very weighty 
responsibility of declaring war to the legislative branch of 
Government. There was a reason for that: So that no Executive would go 
off on a whim or on ill advice and start war but, rather, that the 
representatives of the people in this body and the body at the other 
end of the U.S. Capitol would be involved in that decisionmaking and, 
in fact, would make that decision and then reflect the will of the 
people.
  I thank the Senator from West Virginia for a very cogent and timely 
statement.
  There is trouble in the Middle East and central Asia. I have been to 
Afghanistan twice since the first of the year. I have been to Pakistan 
twice. I have been to India. I have been in the middle of that 
situation, urging the leaders of India and Pakistan to reduce the 
tensions on the Kashmir border because the last thing the world needs 
is an exchange of nuclear weapons. Particularly, that would hurt us 
because both of those countries are helping us in our war against 
terrorism.

  I have been to the Middle East, and that is a troubled part of the 
world. As we approach this most momentous and solemn occasion about 
whether or not, in effect, to declare war by giving the President of 
the United States the authority for the expenditure of funds to conduct 
such a war, we must be mindful, and the questions must be answered:
  What will a war in Iraq do to our war against terrorism? Will it be 
hurt? Will it be helped? Will our war against terrorism be set aside? 
Will our attempt to cut off the head of the snake that operates the al-
Qaida machine be deterred in any way?
  What will happen to the flow of oil out of that region of the world 
to the industrialized world?
  What is the number of troops that is going to be required?
  How likely are the casualties, and how many American lives can we 
expect to lose.
  How many troops are we going to have to hold in reserve? Fighting 
door to door in downtown Baghdad is going to be a different kind of 
war, and I do not think we can go into Iraq assuming that the 
opposition is suddenly going to melt away and that the army is going to 
step forth and suddenly lay down its arms.
  I personally believe that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological 
weapons, and I personally think he is trying to develop nuclear 
weapons. If he, in fact, has chemical and biological weapons, will our 
troops be prepared if those weapons of mass destruction are utilized 
against our troops or utilized against any of the neighbors in the 
region?
  Are we going to be able to approach a war in Iraq with our allies 
solidly behind us? There is an election going on right now in Germany, 
and that certainly does not seem to be the political talk in Germany. 
Germany is one of our closest allies.
  There is also an election going on right now in Turkey, our very 
substantial ally. That election is in November. With the talk of war, 
with the imminent possibility of war, how much of a possibility is 
there that the election would throw to a religious party the 
opportunity to govern Turkey instead of the secular government that has 
given such stability, particularly military stability, in that part of 
the world?
  Then the question arises, which I had the opportunity to ask the 
Secretary of Defense yesterday in the Armed Services Committee, what 
about after there has been the regime change? Is it going to be a 
regime that would be friendly to the United States? Would Iraq be kept 
intact, or would it be ripped asunder?--I might say, to the chagrin of 
our ally Turkey. What is the plan for the United States to be involved 
for the long term in Iraq, militarily and economically? We saw that in 
the phenomenal military success we had in Afghanistan--mostly success; 
some not so successful, such as Tora Bora. We saw that in the midst of 
all of that success, in a much different situation, the hard reality, 
after the fact, that the United States is going to need to be a 
military and economic presence in Afghanistan for a very long time.
  Otherwise, if we leave, it will be like when we left in the late 
1980s. After the Soviets got whipped, they tucked their tail between 
their legs and left, and we, assisting the victors, also left; it 
created a vacuum, and that vacuum was filled by the terrorists.
  So in any post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, it is going to take a lot of 
effort and time and resources by the United States, and I want to see 
the administration spell that out clearly, as the Secretary of Defense 
started to do yesterday in response to my question. There is a lot of 
detail to be filled in.
  It brings us to another question. We have in front of the Senate this 
question of homeland defense, and there is not one of us in this 
Chamber who does not want to have a reorganization of the Government so 
one hand knows better what the other hand is doing, so one hand knows 
better how we can coordinate, and a reorganization of the Government 
can achieve that. In the process, let's not overdo ourselves where we 
take away worker protections, where we strip apart agencies such as the 
Coast Guard, which is a necessary part of the homeland defense. The 
Coast Guard has a lot of other duties to perform. Particularly, if one 
comes from a State such as mine that has such tremendous coastline, the 
Coast Guard performs innumerable functions not only of search and 
rescue but of drug interdiction, and of course their duties have been 
heightened so much now on port security.
  So, as we approach homeland defense, we have a great number of 
decisions to make about which we had better be cautious. Otherwise, 
going back to my initial comments of commendation for the Senator from 
West Virginia and his comments about Iraq and concern about the 
Constitution being shredded with regard to an invasion of Iraq, so, 
too, we have concerns about the Constitution not being obeyed by the 
Congress performing its appropriate legislative role as a check and a 
balance, as an overseer, as an appropriator of the funds, for this new 
Department that is to be created.
  I offer these comments today, and I thank the Senator from West 
Virginia for his very insightful comments. It is always a pleasure to 
listen and to learn from the Senator from West Virginia.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I have had the pleasure of 
describing some of my concerns with regard to the possible invasion of 
Iraq and also the knitting together of the most massive reorganization 
of the Federal Government over the last half century and the creation 
of a new Department of Homeland Defense. This is a massive undertaking. 
It involves some 170,000 people. It involves scores of agencies, with 
an annual $38 billion budget.

  Implied in my remarks is the urging of caution as we approach the 
creation of this agency. One of the items to be discussed in the Senate 
at a future time will be an amendment offered by the Senator from West 
Virginia to take a cautious and deliberative approach in knitting 
together this massive agency. The directorates would be set up under 
the legislation right away, but their implementation would occur over 
the course of 13 months. It would be done on a phased-in basis, in 
which the Congress would be consulted as it is phased in, where there 
would be time to make sure in the example that I have given earlier 
about the Coast Guard functions other than the homeland security 
function that, in fact, the Coast Guard would not be deterred from its 
multiple service roles.
  It is a wise approach the Senator from West Virginia has brought to 
the table in slowing down the process. I hope our colleagues will see 
the wisdom of protecting the separation of powers as provided in the 
Constitution, and the wisdom of us being sure that instead of their 
being such a mass of confusion in a reorganization all at once, that it 
would be done in a deliberative and phased-in approach.

[[Page S8966]]

  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Certainly.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator have an additional 
5 minutes, and that the previous order be extended for an additional 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Florida for his 
perspicacious remarks. He has not been asleep. He has been ill with a 
temporary ailment, but he is back on the mend. He is ready to go.
  I also thank my friend for his expression of support for my 
amendment. That amendment will be voted on next Tuesday. It will be 
voted up or down. Senators will have an opportunity to go on record, if 
they support that amendment, an opportunity to support the creation of 
a Department of Homeland Defense. In voting for my amendment, they will 
have an opportunity to say that we are not going to hand this whole 
package of homeland security as it is envisioned in the House or Senate 
bill. I refer to the Senate bill as the Lieberman bill.
  Once the Senate passes on the homeland security bill, then the Senate 
bill would go to the conference. The conference report eventually would 
come back to both Houses, and the Senate will not have an opportunity 
on the conference report to amend. All the Senate will be able to do is 
vote up or down on the conference report.
  Under the House bill or under the Lieberman bill, the overall time 
certainly under the Lieberman bill, the overall period for the 
``fleshing out'' of this Department of Homeland Security, this fleshing 
out by moving various and sundry agencies and offices into the several 
directorates that are established by the Lieberman bill, and the five 
directorates that are mentioned in my amendment thereto, that fleshing 
out would occur under the Lieberman bill over a period of 13 months.

  But in passing the Lieberman bill, and it is light-years ahead of the 
House bill, it is a better bill than the House bill, but it can be 
improved. That is what I am attempting to do with my amendment. Under 
the Lieberman bill, over a period of 13 months, Congress will be 
putting itself on the sidelines.
  The Senate will be saying: OK, Mr. President, it is all yours. You 
have 13 months. Congress is going fishing. You have it. It is all 
yours.
  Now, nothing would please this President more than to have such a 
blank check handed to him. The Lieberman bill, in that respect, is a 
Tonkin Gulf resolution on homeland security. Congress will be removing 
itself to the sidelines for those 13 months, and the President and this 
administration--think about that carefully--with its penchant for 
secrecy, its penchant for operating out of the White House, having no 
limitations, will have full authority to move agencies and 170,000 
employees into this new department, with Congress relegating itself to 
the sidelines.
  The hand of Congress ought to be there. Congress ought to conduct its 
constitutional responsibility of oversight in seeing that these 
agencies are put into the various directorates in an orderly way 
throughout the 13 months. The Lieberman committee and its counterpart 
in the House under my amendment would be front and center throughout 
the 13 months. That committee would still be in the driver's seat, and 
every 4 months there would be another shift of agencies and 
directorates, every 4 months, until it is completed, over a 13-month 
period.
  All the while, Mr. Lieberman's committee would take the policies and 
the recommendations of the Secretary of Homeland Security, look at 
them, debate them in the committee, amend them, and report the 
legislation to the Senate, and then the Senate would take the 
legislation, report it from the Lieberman committee, and debate it, 
amend it, send it to the President.
  I have said we could have expedited procedure. I am not a Senator who 
likes expedited procedure, but in this situation I would be willing to 
have expedited procedures to see that the bill doesn't fall through the 
cracks in the committee, and that it is not filibustered or delayed in 
the Senate.
  That is my prescription, my amendment for order: a phased filling out 
of the department by agencies and offices, under continuing 
congressional oversight, avoiding the chaos that will otherwise occur 
just by handing this whole thing over to the President and the 
administration--hook, line, and sinker. Just mark my words. I am 
seeking to improve the Lieberman bill. I am not adversarial to the 
Lieberman bill. But if we don't adopt my amendment, or something like 
it, there is going to be chaos, and instead of having a measure that 
will promote the security of our homeland and its people, we will be 
taking our eyes off the terrorists, off homeland security.

  The federal agencies are out there, working now to provide homeland 
security. The passage of the Lieberman bill is not necessary in order 
to get these people out there guarding the ports of entry--the rivers 
and seaports and airports and the southern and northern borders. They 
are already out there working now, every day. The FBI, just a few days 
ago, in the State of New York, located a cell and arrested six persons. 
Did the FBI have to wait on this homeland security bill? There is no 
great outcry out there in the country; there is no great clamor for a 
homeland security bill. When I go to West Virginia, people don't come 
up to me and say: Senator, let's get that homeland security bill 
passed. When are you going to pass that bill? There is no great clamor 
out there. As a matter of fact, it is hard to get anyone to listen to a 
discussion of the subject.
  I have been on this Senate floor time and time again, asking to be 
heard. Listen. Hear me. Why, the Members of the Senate aren't that 
greatly interested in this bill. Facing us in less than 2 months is a 
big election. All of a sudden this administration, which as late as the 
middle of August has been saying that there were ``no plans on the 
President's desk'' to go to war with Iraq. I asked the Secretary of 
State that question in a committee hearing: oh, there is ``no plan. The 
President doesn't have any plan on his desk.'' I asked the Secretary of 
Defense. Oh, the President has no plans. The President himself has been 
quoted time and time again saying he has no plans; ``there is no plan 
on my desk.''
  All of a sudden, bam, the administration wants to go to war with 
Iraq. It wasn't too long ago, I can remember the Secretary's public 
spokesman and Ari Fleischer and some others in the administration, 
saying: ``Why have a Department of Homeland Defense? We don't need 
one.'' That wasn't long ago. But all of a sudden, all of a sudden the 
President was dropping in the polls and the domestic situation was such 
that the administration was appearing to be much like the Emperor who 
had no clothes. All of a sudden, bam, all of this war talk--the war 
fervor, the drums of war, the bugles of war, the clouds of war--this 
war hysteria has blown in like a hurricane. And what has that done to 
the President's polls? Seventy percent.
  Don't tell me that things suddenly went wrong. I sat in on some of 
the secret briefings and nobody from the administration in those secret 
briefings has been able to answer the question: Why now? Why all of a 
sudden, when the administration was saying back just in August the 
President has no plans? Let's not have all of this angst about war.
  All of a sudden this country is going to war. And the President is 
saying, I'll do this if the U.N. doesn't do it.
  Now, all of a sudden, is the Administration talking about 
the domestic situation in this country? Are they talking about the 
stock market? Are they talking about the weakness of the economy? Are 
they talking about the jobs that are being lost? Are they talking about 
the decrease in housing starts in this country? No. No.

  The war clouds are there. All of a sudden this administration sends 
up a resolution to Congress that is a nonstarter, to give this 
President the authority that he is asking for. Not by this Constitution 
will I give my vote on that resolution. That resolution is going to 
take some work. But all of a sudden? Why is it? Is it politics?
  The Constitution is apparently irrelevant to people in this 
administration. What is wanted here by the administration is for 
Congress, in connection with war, to do the same as they want Congress 
to do in homeland security--hand over the whole authority and say: Take 
it, Mr. President. It's all yours for the next 13 months. Congress is 
going fishing. We are not going to be in the mix.

[[Page S8967]]

Congress relegates itself to the sidelines.
  How foolish can we be as Members of the Senate to tuck our tails 
between our legs and just quit and say: ``You can have it all, Mr. 
President. Do anything you want to do with homeland security.'' Well, 
not by my vote.
  I thank the distinguished Senator for his remarks.
  Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

                          ____________________