Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I hope not.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I voted in support of the NOPEC amendment to H.R. 6, which was offered by my colleague, Senator Herbert Kohl. The amendment seeks to prevent OPEC nations from continuing to conspire to limit the supply of oil and to drive up America's already exorbitant energy costs. While I recognize that this is not a perfect piece of legislation, and that it may require the addition of certain clarifying provisions to ascertain its applicability in particular circumstances, I believe that it is a fine first step toward finally holding OPEC accountable for its actions. The time is long overdue for America's working families to send OPEC the message that West Virginians in particular will no longer be content to sit quietly by the side of the road, watching OPEC drive our gas and home heating prices to ever higher levels. This amendment is meant to send a signal--a signal to OPEC nations that the American people are not going to take it anymore. We will no longer be held hostage to OPEC's self- serving energy policies, which line their pockets, at the expense of our pocketbooks.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Miner Health and Safety Enhancement Act of 2007. It is critical that the Congress continue to review the statutory safeguards for our Nation's coal miners. I want to do everything I can to encourage that effort. Given reports recently about alarmingly aggressive cases of black lung around southern West Virginia, the Congress ought to seriously consider new standards for dust monitoring and control. I also support the bill's language requiring the installation of atmospheric monitoring systems in underground coal mines and requiring the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, to randomly test emergency breathing devices every 6 months. I also very much support provisions in the bill that would clarify the intentions of the MINER Act and require the Department of Labor to issue regulations mandating the installation of refuge chambers and restricting the use of belt-air ventilation. These are all good initiatives and something that the Congress should be advocating to ensure safer working conditions for miners. Nevertheless, I do have reservations about some of the provisions in the Miner Health and Safety Enhancement Act, which I hope can be addressed before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee takes any action on this legislation. The MINER Act that the Congress passed last year set a deadline requiring coal operators to install wireless emergency communications and tracking equipment by June 2009. In order to meet this deadline, the Congress appropriated $23 million through the fiscal year 2008 for NIOSH to expedite its research of emergency communications and tracking. It is important that the Congress adhere closely to that schedule. To suddenly rewrite it, mandating the installation of technologies before NIOSH has completed its research, could undermine the intentions of the MINER Act and complicate the efforts of MSHA and the Congress to ensure timely compliance. Let us not revisit timelines that have already been resolved and where implementation has already begun. It is better for the Congress to hold operators to the schedule outlined in the MINER Act and to allow NIOSH to perform the critical research that has already been mandated and funded. The Congress should continue to exercise its oversight function to ensure rapid implementation of the MINER Act and also to review non-MINER Act priorities to ensure statutory safeguards are adequate. I proudly join the sponsors of this bill in that endeavor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Miner Health and Safety Enhancement Act of 2007. It is critical that the Congress continue to review the statutory safeguards for our Nation's coal miners. I want to do everything I can to encourage that effort. Given reports recently about alarmingly aggressive cases of black lung around southern West Virginia, the Congress ought to seriously consider new standards for dust monitoring and control. I also support the bill's language requiring the installation of atmospheric monitoring systems in underground coal mines and requiring the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, to randomly test emergency breathing devices every 6 months. I also very much support provisions in the bill that would clarify the intentions of the MINER Act and require the Department of Labor to issue regulations mandating the installation of refuge chambers and restricting the use of belt-air ventilation. These are all good initiatives and something that the Congress should be advocating to ensure safer working conditions for miners. Nevertheless, I do have reservations about some of the provisions in the Miner Health and Safety Enhancement Act, which I hope can be addressed before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee takes any action on this legislation. The MINER Act that the Congress passed last year set a deadline requiring coal operators to install wireless emergency communications and tracking equipment by June 2009. In order to meet this deadline, the Congress appropriated $23 million through the fiscal year 2008 for NIOSH to expedite its research of emergency communications and tracking. It is important that the Congress adhere closely to that schedule. To suddenly rewrite it, mandating the installation of technologies before NIOSH has completed its research, could undermine the intentions of the MINER Act and complicate the efforts of MSHA and the Congress to ensure timely compliance. Let us not revisit timelines that have already been resolved and where implementation has already begun. It is better for the Congress to hold operators to the schedule outlined in the MINER Act and to allow NIOSH to perform the critical research that has already been mandated and funded. The Congress should continue to exercise its oversight function to ensure rapid implementation of the MINER Act and also to review non-MINER Act priorities to ensure statutory safeguards are adequate. I proudly join the sponsors of this bill in that endeavor.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Bible admonishes us to ``honor thy father and thy mother.'' Courtesy insists that ladies go first. Last month, the Nation honored mothers with Mother's Day. The ladies were treated to cards, flowers, phone calls, brunches, gifts, and sometimes precious handmade crafts from the preschool set. Retailers urged more extravagant manifestations of our love for our wives and mothers with a dazzling array of usually heart-shaped diamond jewelry, all of which is certainly deserved, even if not always affordable. This Sunday, June 17, the fathers get their due. Lumpy clay bowls, aftershave lotion and cologne, odd pieces of sports paraphernalia and, of course, neckties in remarkable fashion colors constitute the classic Father's Day gift for the man who has everything. There does not seem to be quite the same level of extravagance in the gift suggestions by merchants, however, perhaps because men do not wear as much jewelry, and golf clubs do not lend themselves to heart shapes. For that I suppose we can all be grateful. Still, I am sure that most American fathers will enjoy being the center of the family's attention on Sunday. Fathers will enjoy their brunch. Fathers will enjoy a respite from lawn care and other chores. They might even indulge in an afternoon nap, a rare luxury--a rare luxury--for most family men. Fathers deserve their day in the limelight. Good fathers are very busy men, and their contributions to the family merit recognition, just as much as their equally busy wives do. Good fathers work hard--they do--they work hard to provide for their families, but they also invest a lot of time and energy into the home. They often fulfill the stereotypical ``dad role''--they keep the house and the yard in good repair, even if it means tackling mechanical or construction activities for which they have little training. They spend countless hours coaching neighborhood sports teams so that their sons and daughters learn the values of teamwork, leadership, and good sportsmanship. They help with the homework and with assorted school projects, patiently helping to build foaming volcanoes or seaside dioramas. They teach children to set a fishing rod, paddle a canoe, ride a bicycle, or build a dog house. They urge their children to try new things to push themselves harder, to struggle, to win graciously, and to lose with honor. Good fathers want great things for their children. Good fathers help their children to achieve by letting them know that they believe in them. That is a lot to accomplish in a few precious hours between getting home from work and getting to bed each night. The great man who raised me, the greatest man I ever knew, was my old coal miner dad. I always called him my dad. My adoptive father was just such a good man. He walked to work in the coal mines every day, and he walked home at night. Tired he was, covered with coal dust. Tired as he always was, he always greeted me with a smile, a quick smile. And sometimes he had a cake, a cupcake in his lunch box, and he always saved the cake for me. He took pride in my school work. Even though I wanted to go into the mines like him, he always told me not to do it, but to do well in school instead. He did not want me in the mines, in those dangerous days of long ago. He wanted better for me than he had. And he put his energy into urging me to do better. His influence on me has been a resource for my whole life. He is the greatest man I ever knew. I have met with Presidents, kings, and princes. He is the greatest man I ever knew. I was blessed with a good father. I hope that everyone's father is as special to each of you. Fatherhood is a great gift. Fathers gain new responsibilities, but also gain the joys of having children. For children, to have a great father, whether he is one's biological father or one's adoptive father or just a father figure who influences one's youth, is a very special thing indeed. It is certainly possible for a child to grow into a talented, accomplished, and good adult without the influence of a father figure, but good fathers and good mothers give their children an advantage. They give their children the security of knowing always that they are loved and that someone is rooting for them, someone is looking out for them. In that security, a child can find the confidence to try and to fail, and to try and to fail, and to try and to fail, and to try again, and to try and to fail again. It is a great and lasting gift that our fathers give to each of us, one that certainly deserves one day of recognition every year. So, Mr. President, I close with a short poem by Holly Dunn called ``Daddy's Hands'' and a salute to fathers everywhere: I remember daddy's hands folded silently in prayer. And reachin' out to hold me, when I had a nightmare. You could read quite a story in the callous' and lines. Years of work and worry had left their mark behind. I remember daddy's hands, how they held my mama tight And patted my back for something done right. There are things that I'd forgotten that I loved about the man But I'll always remember the love in daddy's hands. Daddy's hands were soft and kind when I was cryin' Daddy's hands were hard as steel when I'd done wrong. Daddy's hands weren't always gentle but I've come to understand There was always love in daddy's hands. I remember daddy's hands workin' 'til they bled Sacrificed unselfishly just to keep us all fed. If I could do things over, I'd live my life again And never take for granted the love-- The sweet love---- in daddy's hands.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, June 14 is celebrated in the United States as ``Flag Day.'' Flag Day is not a big holiday. Offices will not close to observe it; stores will not hold special sales; no fireworks will light the sky; no special presents or dinners will make June 14 stand out for most people. I doubt that even the holiday card makers have put out much of a selection of cards to send to loved ones, reminding them that we are thinking of them on Flag Day. But it is a special day nonetheless. One may notice more flags than usual--small ones cantilevered into the breeze next to neighborhood front doors and larger ones snapping smartly before schools and storefronts. In Washington, DC, of course, we are blessed with a plethora of flags. Flag Day is a good time to take special note of them, flying proudly above the Capitol Building and in front of all the other government offices and monuments, like those encircling the Washington Monument. They are a grand sight every day of the year, but especially so on Flag Day. Americans honor their flag, the Stars and Stripes, or Old Glory, on June 14 because it was on June 14, 1777--230 years ago--that the Continental Congress adopted a resolution to give the United States a national flag to replace the British Union Jack. A special committee was formed assigned to suggest the flag's design in a report. The resulting proclamation was brief but inspiring. It said, simply: That the flag of the United States shall be of 13 stripes of alternate red and white, with a union of 13 stars of white in a blue field, representing a new constellation. The new flag was first carried into battle on September 11, 1777, at the Battle of Brandywine, as General George Washington attempted to prevent the British from advancing on Philadelphia. The 13 stars on that first flag represented the 13 original colonies, but that constellation continued to grow as the Nation grew, until we became the 50 stars that grace Old Glory today. At first, the number of stripes grew as well, but that quickly became unwieldy, and the number of stripes reverted to 13, to represent the original 13 States in the Nation. George Washington is reputed to have said that: We take the stars from heaven, the red from our mother country, separate it by white in stripes, thus showing that we have separated from her. Certainly, the original congressional proclamation did not specify the symbolism of the colors of the flag, or the design, but that has only left the field of symbolism wide open for poets and philosophers, for generals and Presidents as well as everyday citizens. The red has been seen as the blood that has been shed for our Nation, as well as for the red of the British Union Jack. The white has been seen as purity or hope, while the blue has been compared to honor or to the heavens that guard over the Nation. Flags are full of symbols, and Old Glory means many things to Americans. It sums up our Nation in a single icon, and we project our love, pride, determination and even, sometimes, our frustration on it. The American flag usually brings out the best in us, or rather, the best in us usually brings out the American flag. There are few sights more moving than the sudden appearance of so many American flags on the afternoon of September 11, 2001, and in the days immediately after. The fierce determination and unshaken loyalty to our Nation in the face of a threat was clear in the sight of the flags that appeared on homes, stores, mailboxes and cars within hours of that unspeakable event. The Stars and Stripes are seen when we celebrate, such as on the Fourth of July or at inaugurations. Old Glory also marks more solemn occasions. The sight of the American flag draped over the coffin of a soldier home from the war, to be solemnly folded and placed in the lap of his grieving family, is a grim reminder of the sometimes great cost of serving our Nation. Those flags, sitting still folded in triangular flag cases on mantels, under shadowboxes with medals, and the small flags so carefully placed in front of the markers at veterans' cemeteries around the Nation on the last Monday in May, remind us of the close proximity between Memorial Day at the end of May and Flag Day in mid-June. But again soon, on July 4, we will see the Stars and Stripes back in party mode, flying proudly over our heads as a part of our grand national birthday celebration. Mr. President, I like to close my observation of Flag Day with one of my favorite poems, by Henry Holcomb Bennett, entitled ``The Flag Goes By.'' The Flag Goes By Hats off! Along the street there comes A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums, A flash of color beneath the sky: Hats off! The flag is passing by! Blue and crimson and white it shines, Over the steel-tipped, ordered lines. Hats off! The colors before us fly; But more than the flag is passing by. Sea-fights and land-fights, grim and great, Fought to make and save the State; Weary marches and sinking ships; Cheers of victory on dying lips. Days of plenty and years of peace; March of a strong land's swift increase; Equal justice, right, and law, Stately honor and reverend awe; Signs of nation, great and strong Toward her people from foreign wrong; Pride and glory and honor,--all Live in the colors to stand or fall. Hats off! Along the street there comes A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums; And loyal hearts are beating high; Hats off! The Flag is passing by!

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 28 months ago, on February 3, 2005, I voted against the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales to be the Attorney General of the United States. Hallelujah, Amen! Eight days before that, I was one of 13 Senators who voted against the nomination of Condoleezza Rice to be the U.S. Secretary of State. And, if the Senate had been permitted to vote on the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank, I would have voted against that nomination, too. I am proud of my votes against confirmation of these failed architects of the unconstitutional war in Iraq. Their flawed policies have cost our Nation dearly. I shudder to contemplate the billions and even trillions of dollars and the decades of effort that it will take to correct their extraordinary errors in judgment. These are the same administration officials, led by Alberto Gonzales here at home, who have done everything they can to abolish our Nation's carefully calibrated separation of powers and to undermine Americans' civil liberties. Based on ongoing errors in judgment and mistakes made on his watch, I remain convinced that my vote against Alberto Gonzales was in the best interests of this country. It is, therefore, not surprising that I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of S.J. Res. 14. This resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that Attorney General Gonzales no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and of the American people. Frankly, he never held my confidence. Not from day one, and I will tell you why that is so. When President Bush nominated Alberto Gonzales to be the U.S. Attorney General, the President stated that Mr. Gonzales, as White House counsel, had a ``sharp intellect,'' and that it was White House counsel's ``sound judgment'' that had, in the President's words, ``helped shape our policies in the war on terror.'' Sharp intellect and sound judgment? I have heard of damning with faint praise, but applying those words to someone who has had a major role in the reckless and incompetent way in which this administration has waged its so-called war on terror is hardly a compliment. But don't expect Alberto Gonzales to take responsibility for what happened on his watch. Throughout his time in this administration, whenever Mr. Gonzales has been questioned about what he knows about improper conduct, his standard and repetitive response, in the words of the fictional Sergeant Schultz is simply: ``I know nothing.'' When questioned about who made the decision to fire U.S. attorneys for what appear to be purely political reasons, he implausibly states that while he signed off on the decision, he was not really responsible because he was out of the loop. At a press conference on March 13, Attorney General Gonzales stated that he knew nothing of the scandal surrounding the U.S. attorneys, because he was, in his words, ``not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on,'' and, he said, ``that's basically what I knew as the Attorney General.'' Mr. President, that is not an impressive response. Even the Attorney General now says his comment was ``too broad'' and that he ``misspoke.'' He now admits that he did have some involvement. But he said this only after the Justice Department released e-mails and memoranda which showed that he had, in fact, been involved in discussions about the firings. He also claimed that he is not really responsible, because, in his words, ``in an organization of 110,000 people,'' he said, ``I am not aware of every bit of information that passes through the halls of justice, nor am I aware of all decisions.'' Now that seems an odd assertion, considering that he is, in fact--if you will allow me to use the President's terminology--the top ``decider'' at the U.S. Department of Justice. When the Attorney General testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 19, 2007, he continued to argue that he was simply out of touch--an assertion that has been disputed by the two employees he had charged with filling the U.S. attorney positions with party loyalists, D. Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling. On May 15, 2007, speaking before the National Press Club, Mr. Gonzales made yet another effort to shift the blame for any wrongdoing. But this time he chose a new victim. He said, ``You have to remember, at the end of the day, the recommendations [to fire the U.S. Attorneys] reflected the views of the deputy attorney general,'' meaning Paul McNulty. But the Associated Press reported immediately thereafter that documents released from the Justice Department showed that McNulty was not closely involved in picking all of the U.S. attorneys who were put on the list. Instead, it was a job mostly driven by the Attorney General's own, two hand-picked subordinates, Sampson and Goodling. I would invite those who believe that Alberto Gonzales did not know what was happening in his own Department to join me on a quick trip down memory lane. Let me recount a section of the speech that I delivered on the Senate floor just prior to voting against his confirmation to be Attorney General. I reminded my colleagues at that time that Judge Gonzales had admitted being physically present at meetings in his office to determine which acts against enemy combatants should be outlawed as torture. But at his confirmation hearing, he disavowed having any role in the administration's initial decision to define torture extremely narrowly. On January 6, 2005, he was asked by a member of the Judiciary Committee whether he had ever chaired a meeting in which he discussed with Justice Department attorneys the legitimacy of such interrogation techniques. He was asked if, in the meetings he attended, there was discussion of strapping detainees to boards and holding them under water as if to drown them. He testified that there were such meetings, and while he did remember having had some ``discussions'' with Justice Department attorneys, he simply could not recall what he told them in those meetings. He stated that, as White House counsel, he might have attended those meetings, but it was not his role but that of the Justice Department to determine which interrogation techniques were lawful. In other words, he was saying then, just as he is saying today: Don't hold me accountable! Don't blame me if mistakes were made! And, then, just like today, he didn't point the finger of blame at just one other victim. He spread the blame around. While he admitted he'd made some mistakes as White House counsel, he attempted to further deflect responsibility for his actions by saying that a number of what he called other ``operational agencies'' also took responsibility for making flawed decisions on prisoner interrogation techniques. At his confirmation hearing, he said: I have a recollection that we had some discussions in my office, but let me be very clear with the Committee. It is not my job to decide which types of methods of obtaining information from terrorists would be the most effective. That job responsibility falls to folks within the agencies. It is also not my job to make the ultimate decision about whether or not those methods would, in fact, meet the requirements of the anti-torture statute. That would be the job for the agencies . . . I viewed it as their responsibility to make a decision as to whether or not a procedure or method would, in fact, be lawful. Whether on the issue of torture or of firing U.S. attorneys, when it comes to Alberto Gonzales taking responsibility for his actions--as Yogi Berra would say--it's deja vu all over again. One wishes that Judge Gonzales could tell us, just once, what his job is, rather than always telling us only what it is not. Article II, section 3 of the United States Constitution, as head of the Executive Branch, the President has a legal duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The Constitution does not say that the President or his officers ``should'' or ``may'' undertake that responsibility: it clearly states that the President ``shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' The President and his Chief Law Enforcement Officer at the Justice Department must be held accountable not only when they fail to faithfully execute the law, but also when they or their subordinates attempt to undermine, ignore, or gut the law. The Attorney General has a credibility problem, and the American people know it. Despite his assertions to the contrary, he continues to contribute in large measure to the flawed policies and decision making that have flowed from this administration over the past seven years. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 14.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, and I have joined together today to introduce legislation that would allow for the construction of a hydroelectric facility near the the City of Grafton, located in north central West Virginia. A companion measure is being introduced in the U.S.I House of Representatives by Congressman Alan Mollohan. The proposed hydro facility, to be constructed on an existing dam, would supply power to Grafton and surrounding area while also providing a significant economic benefit to the city. Our legislation, which was passed by the Senate late last year but did not clear the House of Representatives before the end of the session, would reinstate a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, for a new hydroelectric facility on the Tygart Valley River. The City of Grafton has been considering the hydroelectric facility for many years, and first received a license for the project in 1989. However, that license lapsed in 1999 without the city making progress on the effort. The Byrd-Rockefeller-Mollohan measure would reinstate the license and allow Grafton to move ahead with the 20- megawatt hydroelectric facility. The City of Grafton is working with a private contractor to develop the hydro project. With a new FERC license, the contractor believes that the project could be in operation as early as 2008. It is expected that the new hydroelectric facility would generate about $300,000 in annual revenues for Grafton, while creating 200 construction jobs in the process. In 1938, the Tygart dam became the first flood control project to be completed in the Pittsburgh District of the Army Corps of Engineers under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1935. It remains one of the most expensive and extensive construction projects in the history of West Virginia. I recognize that the hydroelectric project has been delayed numerous times, but the Congressional Budget Office found that implementing the project will pose zero negative impact to the Federal budget. In fact, it will generate roughly $200,000 in annual licensing fees for the U.S. Treasury. Approval of our legislation will yield a return on this previous significant investment by the American taxpayer by leveraging new value out of old infrastructure. Clean, hydroelectric power generation from an expensive dam previously used only for flood control, at no cost to the Federal Government, is the type of cost-effective, progressive action that we should facilitate and applaud at every chance. It is the right thing to do for the communities and public utilities in the rural Appalachian counties where the existing dam and lake are located. It is the right thing to do for the West Virginians all along the Tygart and Monongahela Rivers. And it is the right thing to do for the taxpaying citizens of this Nation. I respectfully request that my colleagues support our legislation, the bill that makes these positive results possible.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, and I have joined together today to introduce legislation that would allow for the construction of a hydroelectric facility near the the City of Grafton, located in north central West Virginia. A companion measure is being introduced in the U.S.I House of Representatives by Congressman Alan Mollohan. The proposed hydro facility, to be constructed on an existing dam, would supply power to Grafton and surrounding area while also providing a significant economic benefit to the city. Our legislation, which was passed by the Senate late last year but did not clear the House of Representatives before the end of the session, would reinstate a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, for a new hydroelectric facility on the Tygart Valley River. The City of Grafton has been considering the hydroelectric facility for many years, and first received a license for the project in 1989. However, that license lapsed in 1999 without the city making progress on the effort. The Byrd-Rockefeller-Mollohan measure would reinstate the license and allow Grafton to move ahead with the 20- megawatt hydroelectric facility. The City of Grafton is working with a private contractor to develop the hydro project. With a new FERC license, the contractor believes that the project could be in operation as early as 2008. It is expected that the new hydroelectric facility would generate about $300,000 in annual revenues for Grafton, while creating 200 construction jobs in the process. In 1938, the Tygart dam became the first flood control project to be completed in the Pittsburgh District of the Army Corps of Engineers under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1935. It remains one of the most expensive and extensive construction projects in the history of West Virginia. I recognize that the hydroelectric project has been delayed numerous times, but the Congressional Budget Office found that implementing the project will pose zero negative impact to the Federal budget. In fact, it will generate roughly $200,000 in annual licensing fees for the U.S. Treasury. Approval of our legislation will yield a return on this previous significant investment by the American taxpayer by leveraging new value out of old infrastructure. Clean, hydroelectric power generation from an expensive dam previously used only for flood control, at no cost to the Federal Government, is the type of cost-effective, progressive action that we should facilitate and applaud at every chance. It is the right thing to do for the communities and public utilities in the rural Appalachian counties where the existing dam and lake are located. It is the right thing to do for the West Virginians all along the Tygart and Monongahela Rivers. And it is the right thing to do for the taxpaying citizens of this Nation. I respectfully request that my colleagues support our legislation, the bill that makes these positive results possible.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I oppose the amnesty provisions included in this bill. Nevertheless, I voted against the Coburn amendment, because it would have codified expedited procedures in the Senate for considering the Presidential certifications required by the amendment. Exempting legislation from debate and amendment in the Senate is a dangerous practice, and contrary to the constitutional purpose of this unique institution. One need only look to the legislative line-item veto or budget reconciliation process to understand how such procedures could be abused. Had those expedited procedures not been included in the Coburn amendment, I would have supported it. Mr. President, I oppose amnesty for illegal aliens. Waiving our immigration laws, instead of enforcing them, is amnesty--no matter what the level of fines and penalties assessed. It encourages others to flout our laws knowing that they could be similarly rewarded. Amnesties undermine the great American principle that the law should apply equally and fairly to everyone. This bill would create a separate set of rules--one for those who obey the law and one for those who do not. It is a special set of laws for those who chose not to follow the regular process that everybody else had to go through. It is a congressional pardon for lawbreakers--both for illegal aliens and the unscrupulous employers who exploit them. Many employers are anxious to take advantage of the cheap labor that this bill would provide, but the responsibility would fall on the Nation as a whole to make the public investments necessary to absorb these workers into the economy. It is a false promise, to immigrants and U.S. citizens alike, when the infrastructure of our Nation--our schools, our health care system, our transportation and energy networks--are increasingly unable to absorb this untenable surge in the population. I speak from experience when I say that this amnesty will not work. President Reagan signed his amnesty proposal into law in 1986. At the time, I supported amnesty based on the very same promises we hear today--that legalizing undocumented workers and increasing enforcement would stem the flow of illegal immigration. The 1986 amnesty did not work. After 1986, illegal immigrant population more than quadrupled from 2.7 million aliens, to an estimated 12 million illegal aliens today. In that time, the Congress continued to enact amnesty after amnesty, waiving the Immigration Act for lawbreakers. I will not vote to make the same mistake twice. Our immigration system is already plagued with funding and staffing problems. It is overwhelmed on the borders, and in its processing of immigration applications. It only took nineteen temporary visa holders to slip through the system to unleash the horror of September 11. The pending proposal would shove tens of millions of legal and illegal aliens--many of whom have never gone through a background check-- through our border security system over the next decade, in effect swamping a bureaucracy that is already struggling to keep its head above water. Terrorists and criminal aliens have exploited these kinds of amnesties before, and they will do so again. The United States cannot guarantee the security of its borders, and simultaneously waive the law for those who circumvent that security. The Congress must choose between law enforcement and amnesty. I choose law enforcement. The Congress must choose between border security and amnesty. I choose border security. I will oppose this measure, in the hope that the amnesty provisions are removed, and that the Senate quickly passes a clean border security bill.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President: I saw the sun sink in the golden west No angry cloud obscured its latest ray. Around the couch on which it sank to rest Shone all the splendor of a summer day. And long though lost to view, that radiant light Reflected from the skies, delayed the night. Thus, when a good man's life draws to a close, No doubts arise to cloud his soul with gloom, But faith triumphant on each feature glows, While benedictions fill the sacred room; And long, long do men his virtues wide proclaim And generations rise to praise his name. It is with deep sorrow--deep sorrow--that I note the passing of our colleague Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming. He was my friend. He always passed here and I would say: How are you doing today, Cowboy? First elected to the Senate in 1994, Senator Thomas was twice reelected to the Senate by some of the widest margins in his State's history, one time reaching 75 percent of the vote. It is hard to beat that. As has already been mentioned today, he was one of the very few people from Wyoming to have represented his State in both houses of the Congress, over there and over here. Here in the Senate, I found him to be a most considerate and patient colleague. He was always willing to step aside for another Senator who sought recognition. He was a nice man, a very quiet man with a radiant smile, staying out of the spotlight, working behind the scenes, always ready to cooperate and work with others for the good of our country. He was a good, decent human being. Yes, we represented different political parties. Yes, we sometimes held different political views, and we came from vastly different parts of the country, but we shared important common interests and objectives. With his State of Wyoming being the No. 1 coal-producing State in the Nation and my State of West Virginia being No. 2, I always appreciated his support for clean coal technologies and legislation that promoted the use of coal. I always appreciated his interest in and support of our country's beautiful and magnificent national parks. As chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he sponsored legislation that both protected and promoted these national treasures. Just as this former marine dedicated his life to his country, he dedicated his career in the Senate to improving the quality of life for rural America. As cochairman of the Senate rural health caucus, he worked tirelessly to improve the quality of rural health care. He was truly a fine Member of this institution and a great American who will be missed by his colleagues, certainly by me, and by the people of Wyoming. I express my sincere condolences to his wife Susan, to his sons and other members of his family, to his staff, and to the people of Wyoming. All of us will miss Senator Thomas. But we will always retain our very fond memories of him, Craig Thomas. Bless his soul. May God bless him. I repeat these few verses in his memory: Let Fate do her worst, There are relics of joy, Bright dreams of the past, Which she cannot destroy; Which come, in the night-time Of sorrow and care, And bring back the features That joy used to wear. Long, long be my heart With such memories filled, Like the vase in which roses Have once been distilled; You may break, you may shatter The vase, if you will, But the scent of the roses Will hang round it still. Goodbye, Craig. I will miss you. But we will meet again on that far shore where the roses never wither and the flowers never fade.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator is about to speak. Other Senators should listen. So I will stand right here until we get order. May we have order in the Senate?

Mr. BYRD. Look at the people up there. There are people up there. They ought not be in that well when there are votes going on. Read your rule book. Come on.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, Congress approved legislation that would have changed the course of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. I say occupation because, frankly, that is what this is. Our troops won the battle they were sent to fight. The dictator Saddam Hussein is deposed and executed. His rotten government is no more, replaced with a democratically elected Parliament, President, and Prime Minister. We all are cheered at the skill of our soldiers. But, sadly, this President has not done justice by our brave troops. The dreadful management of this occupation has resulted in chaos. Iraq is at war with itself and our troops are caught in the middle. That is why this Congress established a new direction for bringing our troops home from this misbegotten occupation. The bill the President vetoed would have refocused our military, not on the civil war in Iraq but, rather, on Osama bin Laden and his base of operations. It is time for the President to take off his blinders and uncover his ears. White House obstinacy cannot continue to drive our military plans in Iraq. With this supplemental funding legislation we begin to shift the responsibility for Iraq's future off the shoulders of our military, and onto the shoulders of the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people. The White House wanted a blank check for the President's mangled occupation of Iraq. We are not going to sign on that dotted line--not now, not ever. The legislation that is before the Senate today is a step toward that goal. It is not a giant leap, but it is progress. And it is only a first step. In a few weeks, this Senate is expected to focus on the Defense Department authorization bill. I shall press for a vote on the proposal Senator Clinton and I have outlined in the authorization for the Iraq war and to give Congress a chance, just a chance, to decide whether the so-called new mission in Iraq should continue. If this mission is so critical, then let the administration make its case and let the people's elected Representatives--that is us--let the people's elected Representatives vote. In July we will turn our attention to the Pentagon's fiscal 2008 funding request, and in September we will consider the $145 billion war funding request for the next fiscal year. Each of these bills is an opportunity to shape the future course of the mission in Iraq. Clearly, Congress is not turning from the debate on Iraq. On the contrary, we are just beginning this debate. We have all committed to protecting our men and women in uniform. This legislation provides the funding to do just that. We ensure $3 billion for the purchase of mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles. The 2,000 additional advanced armored vehicles that will be built with these funds will help to save the lives of American soldiers and American marines as they travel the lonely streets of Baghdad--the lonely streets of Iraq. If our soldiers are injured in battle, this legislation ensures they will receive high-quality health care when they come home. The fiasco at Walter Reed should be seared into our national consciousness. That is why this legislation provides $4.8 billion to ensure that troops and veterans receive the health care they have earned with their service. A few weeks ago, we watched Kansas families try to put their lives back together after deadly tornadoes ripped through their homes. The Kansas Governor pointed out that her State's National Guard equipment was parked in Iraq and not at home, slowing cleanup and recovery efforts. Other States faced the potential for the exact same problem. This supplemental bill provides $1 billion--that is 1 dollar for every minute since Jesus Christ was born--$1 billion for the National Guard and reserve to replace the trucks and heavy equipment that Guard units have been directed to leave in Iraq. Again today President Bush warned of terrorist attacks on American soil. He talks a great deal about the threats of such attacks, but very seldom does he provide resources to protect the country. If the President's warnings are accurate, the $1 billion contained in this bill should help to save lives. We include funds for port security and for mass transit security, for explosive detection equipment at airports, and for several initiatives in the 9/11 bill that recently passed the Senate, including a more aggressive screening of cargo on passenger airlines. We will not--no, we will not--close our eyes to the huge gaps in our protections at home. We also work to heal the devastated communities still struggling to recover from Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. To this day, mangled trash heaps stand where homes and families once lived. This White House, the Bush White House, sends billions of dollars to rebuild Baghdad but ignores the overwhelming needs in New Orleans, Slidell, Biloxi, and so many other places at home. This bill invests $6.4 billion--that is $6.40 for every minute since Jesus was born--this bill invests $6.4 billion to rebuild the gulf coast communities and to restore the vibrance of this proud region. I close, and I thank my ranking member, Senator Thad Cochran, for his help. I thank Representative Dave Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and the Senate leaders, Senator Harry Reid and Senator Mitch McConnell. I thank the Appropriations Committee staff: staff director, Charles Kieffer; Republican staff director, Bruce Evans; and our subcommittee and professional staff members. I appreciate, I deeply appreciate the long hours they have worked-- yes, long hours they have worked to craft the supplemental legislation. I urge Senators, all Senators on both sides of the aisle, to support this legislation. It is the product of bipartisan negotiations. That is right, isn't it, Thad?

Mr. BYRD. It meets the critical needs of this country. It moves us forward in our efforts to change the dynamic in Iraq. We must challenge--we must challenge--this President, our President, to open his eyes to the truth and adopt the new direction in Iraq that this Nation and the world so eagerly--yes, so anxiously--awaits. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the following are additional explanatory materials regarding the appropriations for the Department of Defense made by the House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2206. I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields. John McCrae, who wrote ``In Flanders Fields,'' was a Canadian physician. He fought on the western front in 1914 before he was transferred to the medical corps and assigned to a hospital in France. He died of pneumonia while on active duty in 1918, and his volume of poetry was published in 1919. This Monday, in veterans cemeteries around the Nation, flags will be placed, tenderly placed--tenderly placed--before gravestones that carefully and simply mark the thousands of enlisted men and officers, soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who, like John McCrae, did not come home to ticker tape parades but, rather, to slow caissons trailed by weeping families, final gunfire salutes, and the haunting melodies of ``Taps'' played by a lone bugler. Some of those graves will be lush with sod, and the final dates will bring back great battles in the campaigns from the Pacific, Africa, or Europe. Other graves will still be raw Earth, with dates on the headstones that mark the ambushes and improvised explosive devices of modern urban insurgent warfare. But on this day, none--none--will be forgotten, and all will be honored for their sacrifice, whatever their rank, whatever their service, and whatever their last proud moment. The red of the poppies and the red stripes in the flags recall the red badge of their courage. The current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have also given rise to some new ways to remember and honor the fallen. On the Internet, each soldier lost in Iraq has his or her name, his or her picture, and the date and the place of their death listed on a number of Web sites, including those hosted by several newspapers. A traveling exhibit of 1,319 portraits lets ``America's Artists Honor America's Heroes'' through their own talents--through their own talents. When the exhibit is over, those portraits will be given to the soldier's family. In these ways, each of us can put a face to these statistics. We can see the faces, young and old, just as their families remember them. The Senate this week has also remembered those who have fallen and those still in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Appropriations Committee has finalized the emergency supplemental bill to fund the operations of the military and provide more protective gear and technology to our troops in the field. I hope that this time the President, our President, will sign the bill and speed those funds to the troops. Also this week, the Senate Armed Services Committee is marking up the fiscal year 2008 Defense authorization bill. This bill too will look after all of our Active-Duty, Guard and Reserve forces that face the prospect of additional and longer tours in Iraq in the months ahead. Like the emergency supplemental bill put together by the Appropriations Committee, the Defense authorization bill will continue the work of ensuring that the wounded from these conflicts receive the best care and support as they recover from their injuries. In 430 BC, after the first year of the Peloponnesian War, the Greek historian Thucydides recorded the funeral oration delivered by Pericles, the great Greek general. Thucydides records that Pericles did not speak of the battles but, rather, of the glories--the glories--of Athens and what a privilege it was--what a privilege it was--for each Athenian to live in such a perfect place. Pericles said that the sacrifice of those fallen in battle to keep the nation strong left them with the: Noblest of all tombs--the noblest of all tombs, I speak not of that in which their remains are laid, but of that in which their glory survives. Pericles felt there could be no better place to live than Athens and no place more deserving of a soldier's sacrifice. Almost 2,500 years later, I feel confident that every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine who has fought and died in Afghanistan and Iraq probably felt the same way--yes--about the United States. They were proud to be in uniform and ready to serve the Nation that they loved and held in such high regard. The Nation will ever mourn their loss and honor their sacrifice.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the chair for the effort he has taken. I hesitate very much to impose on the time of the Senate. But there ought to be a time now and then when one might impose on the time of the Senate. Let me read from the Standing Orders of the Senate, Standing Order 105. Hear this: ``Resolved, That it is a standing order of the Senate that during yea and nay votes in the Senate, each Senator shall vote from the assigned desk of the Senator.'' I always try to do that, Mr. President. That was by S. Res. 480, 90th Congress, second session. October 11, 1984. I will tell you who authored that resolution. That was my former colleague, my former late colleague Jennings Randolph. I have never forgotten it. Once in a while, I vote from the well of the Senate, and sometimes I cast my vote from here. But that is what this book says: ``Resolved, that it is a standing order of the Senate that during yea and nay votes in the Senate, each Senator shall vote from the assigned desk of the Senator.'' There was a reason for that. I won't take the time of the Senate this evening to talk about this further, but I will have something to say one day about that. ``[E]ach Senator shall vote from the assigned desk of the Senator. S. Res. 480, 90th Congress, second session, October 11, 1984. May God bless his name, Jennings Randolph. I thank the Senate, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, here we are once again--deja vu--debating supplemental funding for the President's disastrous misadventure in Iraq. Now in its fifth year of occupation, the U.S. death toll in Iraq is over 3,380. What a shame, shame, shame. The death toll of innocent Iraqis is largely unknown, but it probably numbers in the tens of thousands. The United States of America has spent over $378 billion in Iraq. Do you know how much a billion dollars is? That is $1 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. So the United States has spent over $378 billion in Iraq, and we are all familiar with the horrendous tales of waste and abuse by U.S. contractors in Iraq. The taxpayer--that is you out there--has been ravaged by the profiteering in Iraq. But even worse, despite the billions, our brave troops have been shortchanged with inadequate equipment to protect their lives and shoddy medical care, if they make it back home, to treat wounds of the body and of the mind. Now the President has threatened to veto the House bill, which is before the Senate, because it sets a date to withdraw, provides funding until late July and ``could unreasonably burden the President's exercise of his constitutional authorities, including his authority as Commander in Chief.'' President Bush has also objected to funding for rebuilding the Gulf Coast States after Hurricane Katrina, funding to improve health care for our troops and our veterans, funding for the shortfall in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, funding for Low-Income Heating Assistance Program, and more funding for Homeland Security. Mr. President, this President--our President--has a single-minded obsession with Iraq, and he appears to see no value in anything except continuing his chaotic ``mission impossible.'' While tilting at windmills may have been a harmless procedure for Don Quixote, Mr. Bush's war is turning the sands of Iraq blood red. Mr. Bush raises constitutional concerns in his latest veto threat. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. I don't no whether to laugh or to cry. I suppose one could be encouraged that constitutional concerns exist in the Bush kingdom. After setting aside the Constitution whenever convenient to justify preemptive attacks, illegal searches, secret wiretapping, clandestine military tribunals, treaty violations, kidnapping, torture, and a rejection of habeas corpus, one has to wonder about the nature of these purported ``constitutional concerns.'' If the Constitution is finally to be read, let us read it in its entirety, including the articles which give the people's representatives--that is us--the power over the purse--yes, the power over the purse; don't ever forget it. That is the real power. It gives the people's representatives the power over the purse and the power to declare war. In its statement of administrative policy, the administration claims that the House bill before us `` . . . is likely to unleash chaos in Iraq. . . .'' Mr. President, what do we have now if not chaos in Iraq? Securing Iraq has unaccountably morphed into securing Baghdad, and even that goal eludes us. I doubt if building a wall around the green zone is going to be of much consequence in securing Baghdad, not to mention the very strange message such a wall conveys concerning our purported liberation of Iraq. The President--our President--continues to miss the point. Iraq is at war with itself. America cannot create a stable democracy in Iraq at the point of a gun. While our troops succeeded in toppling Saddam Hussein, it is the President's profound misunderstanding of the dynamics in Iraq that have led to the failure of his Iraq policies. Why in the world should we now believe the claims that he makes in his veto threat? There must be an end to this occupation of Iraq. Yes, I say occupation for it is no longer a war in which U.S. troops should be involved. Our troops won the war they were sent to fight, and they should not now be asked to serve as targets in a religious conflict between Sunni and Shiites that has raged for thousands of years. It is reported that even a majority in the Iraqi Parliament now supports legislation which demands a scheduled withdrawal and an immediate freeze on the number of foreign soldiers in Iraq. In April, Congress set a new course for the war in Iraq. Sadly, the President--our stubborn, uncompromising President--chose to veto that bill. As we prepare to go to conference again, the President continues--our President--to close his eyes and cover his ears to the reality in Iraq, and the urgent need for a new direction. Whatever decision is made in conference will not be the last chapter in this sad story. God willing, this Senator will not close his eyes, nor will he cover his ears, nor will I stand by in silence. Hear me. We need to conclude this terrible, awful mistake that we have made in Iraq. I said in the beginning that we ought not go into Iraq. But we are there. Anti-Americanism is more robust now than in any period in our history because of Iraq. Do you hear that? The international community is skeptical--why should they not be? They are skeptical of U.S. intentions because of Iraq. Our Constitution has been trampled-- hear that. Our Constitution has been trampled because of Iraq. Thousands of U.S. troops and Iraqi citizens have lost their lives because of Iraq. Thousands more are maimed physically or mentally because of Iraq. Billions of U.S. dollars have been wasted because of Iraq. President Bush has lost all credibility. President Bush, our President, has lost all--all--credibility because of Iraq. Terrorism is on the rise worldwide because of Iraq. May God grant this Congress--that is, us--may God grant this Congress the courage to come together and answer the cries of a majority of the people who sent us here. Find a way to end this horrible catastrophe, this unspeakable--unspeakable--ongoing calamity called Iraq. May God help us in the United States.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, May 19 is Armed Forces Day. This is the day our country sets aside each year to remember and to honor the brave and patriotic Americans who serve today in the United States Armed Forces. On Armed Forces Day in 1953, President Dwight David Eisenhower noted, ``It is fitting and proper that we devote one day each year to paying special tribute to those whose constancy and courage constitute one of the bulwarks guarding the freedom of this nation and the peace of the free world.'' More than a half century later, his words still ring true. The survival of freedom still costs the commitment and sacrifice of America's sons and daughters. I want to use this opportunity to let them know that we in the United States Congress are thinking of them, and that we thank them for their service to our country. I would also like to use this opportunity to pay tribute to another brave and patriotic American, Mr. Frank Woodruff Buckles, who currently resides in the historic town of Charles Town, WV, and who served in the Armed Forces of the United States 90 years ago. That's right--90 years ago. Mr. President, last month, April 6 marked the 90th anniversary of the America's entrance into World War I. That was the ``war to end all wars.'' That was the ``war to make the world safe for democracy.'' We know that did not happen. But World War I was the historic, global conflict that brought the United States onto the international scene. And it marked the emergence of the United States as a superpower. Mr. President, 4.7 million Americans served in the U.S. military during that war--the ``great war'' as it was called. Of the 4.7 million Americans who served in World War I, only 4 are still living. One of them is Mr. Frank Woodruff Buckles of Charles Town, WV. Mr. Buckles was born in Harrison County, MO, on February 1, 1901, about 40 miles from the birthplace of his future commander, GEN John J. Pershing, the commander of the American Expeditionary Force in World War I. Mr. Buckles was only 16 years of age when the United States entered the war. Therefore, when he went to enlist in the Marines in order to fight the kaiser, he was rejected because he was too young. So he then tried the Navy. This time he was rejected because he was flatfooted. Determined to serve his country, Mr. Buckles went into the Army. This time, he was successful in enlisting because he lied about his age. On August 14, 1917, Mr. Buckles enlisted in the United States Army. Four months later, in December, 1917, he sailed ``over there'' aboard the RMS Carpathia, the vessel that had rescued the survivors of the Titanic 5 years earlier. As a doughboy, Private Buckles drove dignitaries around England and an ambulance around France. Mr. Buckles usually downplays his wartime experience, explaining: ``There was nothing dramatic about it. Sometimes I was driving in Winchester, England, sometimes France.'' But his experience was indeed dramatic and it was important. Once war was declared, Mr. Buckles did not wait for his country to call him. He went from one military service to another until he was able to enlist, even if it meant fabricating his age. It was the willingness of 4.7 million brave and patriotic Americans to enter the military and to serve our country that won that war. On this Armed Forces day, we need to remember them as well as the men and women currently wearing our Nation's uniforms. We must keep all of them in our hearts and prayers, and make sure our country serves them, just the way they have served our country. Mr. Buckles was discharged from the Army in 1920 at the age of 18. He attended business school, and then worked in various jobs in the United States and Canada, including a stint in the bond department at Bankers Trust in New York City. But his love of adventure and sense of excitement eventually led him out to sea again, this time working for different shipping lines as a purser and quartermaster. He first worked off the coast of South America, then on to Europe. In the 1930s, his work on a steamship line took him to Nazi Germany, where he attended the 1936 Olympics in Munich. Here he saw the great Jessie Owens win a gold medal to the great embarrassment of German Chancellor Adolph Hitler, who he also saw at the games. In 1940, his work on steamship lines then landed him in the Philippines. He was working in Manila when the Japanese invaded. Mr. Buckles was captured and spent the next 3\1/2\ years in Japanese prison camps. Although he was a civilian, he was treated as a prisoner of war. At dawn, February 23, 1945, the same day that the American flag was raised on Iwo Jima's Mount Suribachi, the 11th Airborne Division liberated Mr. Buckles and his fellow prisoners. After his release from prison camps, Mr. Buckles finally decided he had enough adventure and excitement. ``I had been bouncing around from one place to another for years at sea,'' he explained. ``It was time to settle down.'' So he married Audrey Mayo. I am pleased to point out that in 1954, Mr. Buckles and his wife settled on a 330-acre farm in the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia, the same area where his ancestor, Robert Buckles, had settled in 1732. For the next five decades--that's right, five decades--Mr. Buckles has continued to operate his beloved farm. Maybe it is from breathing that good, clean West Virginia mountain air, or, perhaps, it is his own eternal youth and vigor. Whatever the reason, at the age of 106, this hardy West Virginian is still going strong. He will serve as grand marshal of the World War I section of the Memorial Day parade, here in Washington DC. A few years ago, the President of France presented Mr. Buckles with the Legion of Honor at a ceremony honoring World War I veterans at the French embassy here in Washington, DC. And he has been the subject of feature stories in USA Today, the Charleston Daily Mail, and ``America's Young Warriors,'' and a number of other newspapers and magazines. Mr. President, on this Armed Forces Day, I salute this brave and patriotic American. And I again salute and thank all those men and women serving in our Armed Forces today for their commitment and their sacrifice.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. No, no, let's vote.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President.